Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & Ors.
Email( From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.91 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal , Bombay in O.A. No. 160 of 1988 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.91 of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal , Bombay in O.A. No. 160 of 1988 )
Service of show cause notice was sought to be effected on the respondent by publication in a newspaper without making any earlier effort to serve him personally by tendering the show-cause notice either through the office peon or by registered post . There is nothing on record to indicate that the newspaper in which the show-cause notice was published was a popular news-paper which was expected to be read by the public in general or that it had wide circulation in the area or locality where the respondent lived . The show-cause notice cannot , therefore , in these circumstances , be held to have been served on the respond-ent . ( Para 4 )
Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be ini-tiated by issuing a charge-sheet , its actual service is essential as the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and , thereafter , to participate in the discipli-nary proceedings . So also , when the show-cause notice is issued , the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action proposed to be taken against him . Since in both the situations , the employee is given an opportunity to submit his reply , the theory of ” Communication ” cannot be invoked and ” Actual Service ” must be proved and established . ( Para 10 )
2 . State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram , AIR 1970 SC 214 ( Para 7 ) Re-ferred in JT 1998 (6) SC 1
3 . State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika , AIR 1966 SC 1313 ( Para 7 ) Referred in JT 1998 (6) SC 1
4 . S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab , ( 1964 ) 4 SCR 733 = AIR 1964 SC 72 ( Para 7 ) Referred in JT 1998 (6) SC 1
5 . Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab , 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 713 = AIR 1963 SC 395 ( Para 7 ) Referred in JT 1998 (6) SC 1
1 . The original respondent , Dinanath Shantaram Karekar , who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Bombay and has since been replaced by the present respondents , was appointed as unskilled labour in the Naval Armament Depot , Bombay . He was subsequently promoted to the post of Gun Repair Labourer , Grade-I . On 25th October , 1973 , he was declared quasi-permanent on that post with effect from 1.8.1966 . He was , however , removed from service by order dated 19th august , 1985 after regular departmental enquiry . This order was upheld in the Departmental appeal . The order of removal as also the appellate order were challenged by him before the Trib-unal on the grounds , inter alia , that neither the charge sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon him and , there-fore , the entire proceedings are vitiated . The Tribunal has found that the charge sheet which was issued to him by registered post was returned with the postal endorsement “not found” , while the show-cause notice was published straight away in Dainiki Sagar , Navshakti . The Tribunal found the service of the charge-sheet and the show cause notice on the respondent as insufficient and , therefore , set aside the order dated 19th August , 1985 , by which he was removed from service .
2 . Learned counsel for Union of India has strenuously urged that since the respondent had been absenting himself from the office unauthorisedly , the service of charge sheet sent to him through registered post should be treated as sufficient . This contention cannot be accepted .
3 . Respondent was an employee of the appellant . His personal file and the entire service record was available in which his home address also had been mentioned . The charge sheet which was sent to the respondent was returned with the postal endorsement “not found” . This indicates that the charge sheet was not ten-dered to him even by the postal authorities . A document sent by registered post can be treated to have been served only when it is established that it was tendered to the addressee . Where the addressee was not available even to the postal authorities , and the registered cover was returned to the sender with the endorse-ment “not found” , it cannot be legally treated to have been served . The appellant should have made further efforts to serve the charge sheet on the respondent . Single effort , in the circum-stances of the case , cannot be treated as sufficient . That being so , the very initiation of the departmental proceedings was bad . It was ex-parte even from the stage of charge sheet which , at no stage , was served upon the respondent .
4 . So far as the service of show cause notice is concerned , it also cannot be treated to have been served . Service of this notice was sought to be effected on the respondent by up
