AIR INDIA LTD. versus M. YOGESHWAR RAJ

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 02-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-). 
- -l 
-
AIR INDIA LTD. 
v. 
M. YOGESHWARRAJ 
MAY2, 2000 
[D.P. WADHWAAND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
'Disciplinary proceedings-Interference with-Employee-Bogus Caste 
Certificate produced for seeking Employment-Show Cause notice-Discipli-
nary Authority not finally deciding the charges and not making up its mind 
regarding delinquent employee's guilt-High Court passing an interim order 
staying the disciplinary proceedings by prima facie holding that the employee 
belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe-Validity of-Held, High Court 
neither justified in pre-empting a factual decision of the Disciplinary Authority 
on the issue, nor justified in staying the disciplinary proceedings-Thus, the 
order of High Court is set aside. 
/ 
Respondent, appointed against a reserved post, was issued with a 
show cause notice for producing bogus Caste Certificate. Inquiry Commit-
tee found him not guilty of the charges framed. However, Disciplinary 
Authority not agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Committee, issued 
a second show cause notice holding that the charges levelled against the 
delinquent employee in the first show cause notice were established. But 
the Disciplinary Authority instead of coming into any final conclusion on 
the issue, asked' the respondent to submit his reply. On challenge, High 
Court passed an order staying the disciplinary proceedings by prima facie 
holding that the respondent belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
Held : 1.1. High Court was not justified in granting interim relief by 
staying the disciplinary proceedings. [909-A-B] 
1.2. The show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority 
clearly shows that it had not finally decided the issue involved in the case 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
and had not made up its mind as to the guilt of the respondent. Further, it 
H 
905 
A 
B 
c 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
appears from the writ petition that the respondent has not questioned the 
jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to issue the impugned show 
cause notice. Thus, High Court should not have pre-empted a factual 
decision of the Disciplinary Authority on the issues. Nor should the High 
Court have stayed the proceedings on a prima facie finding on the subject 
matter of the enquiry when the competence of the Disciplinary Authority . 
was not in doubt. (908-G-H; 909-B-D] 
Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1964] 3 
SCR 616 and State of Haryana v. Om Prakash, Constable, [1990] Supp. SCC 
282, distinguished. 
2. In the instant case, there was no delay in initiating the disciplinary 
proceedings and the respondent participated in the inquiry without any 
protest. (910-B-C] 
).. -
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Another, (1990) Supp. SCC 
D 
738, distinguished. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3113 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.99 of the Bombay High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 2293 of 1999. 
Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, Ms. Arpita Shanna, Ms. Tamta 
Bery, Sanjay Choudhary, Ms. Nina Gupta and Vmeet Kumar for the Appel-
lant. 
P.P. Rao, M.Y. Raj, Ashok D. Shetty, Ravishankar and R.D. Upadhyay 
F 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted. 
G 
The appeal has been preferred from the order of the High Court of 
Bombay dated 18th September, 1999 by which the High Court issued a rule 
.and granted interim relief on the writ application filed by the respondent. 
The subject matter of challenge in the writ applicati<?n was a show 
cause notice dated 30th August, 1999 issued by the appellant to the writ 
H 
petitioner. The impugned show cause notice followed an earlier show cause 
'
AIR INDIA LTD. v. M.Y. RAJ [RUMA PAL, J .] 
907 
notice (referred to as the "first notice") issued to the respondent by the 
appellant on 29.12.1998. It was alleged in the first notice that the respondent 
had been given appointment by the appellant in 1976 on the basis of his claim 
that he belonged to a Schedule Tribe against a post reserved for Schedule 
Caste/Schedule Tribe. A caste certificate had been submitted by the respond-
ent at the time of his appointment which had been issued by the Tutor, 
Department of Pathology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Osmania Medical 
College, Hyderabad and attested by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk 
without the signature of the concerned Tahsildar. As the caste certi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.