PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: I. S. SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT19/01/1994 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 518 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondent was a Superintendent of Statistics in
the Field Operations Division, National Sample Survey
Organisation, Union of India the appellants herein.
Certain charges were framed against him for unauthorised
absence and an inquiry held. By an order dated May 30,
1980, he was compulsorily retired from service as a measure
of penalty. He filed an appeal which was dismissed on
August 30, 1982. It appears that thereafter he filed a
review before the appellate authority which is not indeed
provided by the rules. This review petition came to be
dismissed on July 9, 1985, whereupon he approached the High
Court by way of a writ petition. While the writ petition
was pending, the Central Administrative Tribunal was
constituted and the writ petition was transferred to that
Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the respondent’s application
by its order dated November 4, 1991. The Tribunal has
allowed the application on two grounds, viz., (1) non-
furnishing of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the
respondent before imposing the punishment and (2)
irregularities in conduct of the inquiry.
2. So far as the first ground is concerned, it stands
negatived by the recent decision of this Court in Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakarl , inasmuch as the
order of punishment is of the year 1980. So far as the
second ground is concerned, a few facts need be stated. An
inquiry was held, in the first instance, which was not found
to be in order by the disciplinary authority who directed a
fresh inquiry. When notices were issued in the second
inquiry, they could not be served on the respondent. On a
later date, the respondent sent an application stating that
he is suffering from unsoundness of mind and that the
inquiry may be postponed till he regains his mental health.
1 (1993) 4 SCC 727: 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184: (1993 ) 25 ATC
704: JT (1993) 6 SC 1
520
The respondent also states that he sent his medical
certificate along with he is application. (Indeed, according
to him, he sent not one but three letters to the said
effect.) The report of the Enquiry Officer, however, does
not show that he paid any attention to these letters. If,
indeed, the letters were not accompanied by medical
certificates, as is now asserted by Shri Mahajan, learned
counsel for the appellants, the proper course for the
Enquiry Officer was to have called upon the respondent
either to produce a medical certificate or to direct him to
be examined by a medical officer specified by him. The
inquiry report does not even refer to the request contained
in the said application nor does it mention why and for what
reasons did he ignore the said plea of the respondent. The
Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte, in spite of the said
letters and made his recommendation on the basis of which
the aforesaid penalty was imposed. It is evident from the
facts stated above that the Enquiry Officer has not only
conducted the inquiry in a manner contrary to the procedure
prescribed by Rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules but also in
violation of the principles of natural justice. The result
of this finding would have been to set aside the order of
punishment and allow the authority to proceed with the
inquiry afresh. In our opinion, however, this is not
advisable at this distance of time and also having regard to
the nature of the charges levelled against the respondent.
We think that the more appropriate course would be to give a
quietus to the matter at this stage itself, at the same time
providing for some measure of penalty to the respondent. We
suggested to the learned counsel for the respondent whether
he is agreeable to our suggestion, viz., that the respondent
should forego the emoluments for the period commencing from
June 1, 1980 to August 31, 1985 (approximating to the date
of punishment and the date on which the respondent
approached the High Court). Learned counsel, Shri H.M.
Singh, agrees to the said course after consulting his
client. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal but
direct that the respondent shall not be entitled to any
emoluments for the period June 1, 1980 to August 31, 1985.
The said period shall, however, count for seniority and
other purposes. The respondent shall be reinstated
forthwith.
3. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No
costs.
521