Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Balakrishnan
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 1998
Petitioner: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent: S. Balakrishnan
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 1998
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 21, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Dismissal – Punishment award-ed in disciplinary proceedings – Charges of filing false certifi-cate – Interference by High Court on grounds of non-supply of enquiry report. Held that in view of the ECIL case (JT 1993 (6) SC 1) the judgment of High Court is set aside and petition by delin-quent is dismissed. (Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (JT 1993 (6) SC 1) (Para 2)
2. U.O.I. & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramazan Khan (JT 1990 (4) SC 456) (Para 1)
2. U.O.I. & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramazan Khan (JT 1990 (4) SC 456) (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 151/1998, dismiss-ing the appeal and refusing to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent was an applicant for the post of marketing trainee pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 1987. In the advertisement, the minimum qualification required was a graduate from University. On the basis of the application filed and documents appended thereto, the employer considered the respondent and gave him the appointment. But subsequently, on receipt of a complaint that the certificate furnished by the respondent is a forged one and is not a genuine certificate, the employer made a correspondence with the Univers-ity and obtained a report that in fact the certificate is not genuine. While giving this reply to the employer, the University retained the certificate with them for taking some remedial action. On receipt of the aforesaid reply from the University, the employer started a disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in the year 1989, and a set of charges were levelled against him and an enquiry officer was appointed. The delinquent respondent made a grievance before the enquiring officer that unless and until the original certificate is given to him he will not be in a position to defend himself in the enquiry proceed-ings. Needless to mention, a photocopy of the certificate in question had been furnished to the delinquent, and yet he did not make his defence to the enquiring officer. The charges against the delinquent were, (i) failed to maintain absolute integrity, (ii) committed an act which is unbecoming of public servant and (iii) furnished false information regarding his qualifications. On the basis of the materials produced, the enquiring officer came to the conclusion that all the three charges have been established against the delinquent. The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the enquiring officer, and then inflicted the punishment of order of dismissal. Along with the dismissal order, a copy of the report of the enquiring officer was also furnished to the delinquent. The delinquent assailed the order in the High Court, and learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of punishment on the ground that non-furnishing of the enquiry report before inflicting the punishment vitiated the proceedings, obviously following the judgment of this Court in U.O.I. & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramazan Khan (JT 1990 (4) SC 456). The employer then assailed the order of the learned Single Judge by preferring an appeal, and by the impugned judgment the Divi-sion Bench following the self same decision of this Court did not interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, and hence the present appeal.
2. Though the order of the learned single Judge is the main order, notwithstanding the order of the Division Bench having affirmed the same, it is unfortunate that the order has not been appended in the present appeal, which indicates utter negligence on the part of the employer in prosecuting its remedies before the Court. The Counsel wanted an adjournment to file a copy of that order, but we are not prepared to adjourn this matter on that score. The question, however, still remains to be considered is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with an order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority merely on the ground that non-supply of enquiry report has vitiated the entire proceedings. It had not been brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the Court that the judgment of this Court in Ramzan Khan has already been considered by this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karuna-kar & Ors. (JT 1993 (6) SC 1), which is a Constitution Bench decision of the Court, and which clarifies the entire position. Without being aware of the correctness of law, the High Court appears to have interfered with an order of dismissal passed in a disciplinary proceedings in grave charges like the one with which we are concerned in the present case. Applying the principles indicated by this Court in ECIL case to the facts of the present case, we cannot conceive any prejudice which is said to have been caused to the delinquent, and there-fore non-supply of the enquiry report could not have been held to have vitiated the entire proceedings. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and hold that the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed. In view of the nature of charges against the delinquent, we were considering of directing to lodge a First Information Report for criminal investigation, but we are told
that the University has already taken that step, and there-fore, we refrain from
issuing any further direction in the mat-ter.
3. The appeal is disposed of.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 151/1998, dismiss-ing the appeal and refusing to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent was an applicant for the post of marketing trainee pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 1987. In the advertisement, the minimum qualification required was a graduate from University. On the basis of the application filed and documents appended thereto, the employer considered the respondent and gave him the appointment. But subsequently, on receipt of a complaint that the certificate furnished by the respondent is a forged one and is not a genuine certificate, the employer made a correspondence with the Univers-ity and obtained a report that in fact the certificate is not genuine. While giving this reply to the employer, the University retained the certificate with them for taking some remedial action. On receipt of the aforesaid reply from the University, the employer started a disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in the year 1989, and a set of charges were levelled against him and an enquiry officer was appointed. The delinquent respondent made a grievance before the enquiring officer that unless and until the original certificate is given to him he will not be in a position to defend himself in the enquiry proceed-ings. Needless to mention, a photocopy of the certificate in question had been furnished to the delinquent, and yet he did not make his defence to the enquiring officer. The charges against the delinquent were, (i) failed to maintain absolute integrity, (ii) committed an act which is unbecoming of public servant and (iii) furnished false information regarding his qualifications. On the basis of the materials produced, the enquiring officer came to the conclusion that all the three charges have been established against the delinquent. The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the enquiring officer, and then inflicted the punishment of order of dismissal. Along with the dismissal order, a copy of the report of the enquiring officer was also furnished to the delinquent. The delinquent assailed the order in the High Court, and learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of punishment on the ground that non-furnishing of the enquiry report before inflicting the punishment vitiated the proceedings, obviously following the judgment of this Court in U.O.I. & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramazan Khan (JT 1990 (4) SC 456). The employer then assailed the order of the learned Single Judge by preferring an appeal, and by the impugned judgment the Divi-sion Bench following the self same decision of this Court did not interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, and hence the present appeal.
2. Though the order of the learned single Judge is the main order, notwithstanding the order of the Division Bench having affirmed the same, it is unfortunate that the order has not been appended in the present appeal, which indicates utter negligence on the part of the employer in prosecuting its remedies before the Court. The Counsel wanted an adjournment to file a copy of that order, but we are not prepared to adjourn this matter on that score. The question, however, still remains to be considered is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with an order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority merely on the ground that non-supply of enquiry report has vitiated the entire proceedings. It had not been brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the Court that the judgment of this Court in Ramzan Khan has already been considered by this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karuna-kar & Ors. (JT 1993 (6) SC 1), which is a Constitution Bench decision of the Court, and which clarifies the entire position. Without being aware of the correctness of law, the High Court appears to have interfered with an order of dismissal passed in a disciplinary proceedings in grave charges like the one with which we are concerned in the present case. Applying the principles indicated by this Court in ECIL case to the facts of the present case, we cannot conceive any prejudice which is said to have been caused to the delinquent, and there-fore non-supply of the enquiry report could not have been held to have vitiated the entire proceedings. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and hold that the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed. In view of the nature of charges against the delinquent, we were considering of directing to lodge a First Information Report for criminal investigation, but we are told
that the University has already taken that step, and there-fore, we refrain from
issuing any further direction in the mat-ter.
3. The appeal is disposed of.
