BHAJAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 27-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 825 
BHAJAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7706 of 2013) 
AUGUST 27, 2013 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Selection - Of respondent No. 4 as 
Managing Director of respondent no.2-State Water Supply 
Department - Manner and merits of - Challenge to, on ground 
C 
of non-disclosure of pending charge-sheets against 
respondent no.4 to the Selection Committee - Held: 
Respondent no.3 was Chairman of Respondent no.2-Nigam 
and also a Member of the Selection Committee - He was fully 
aware that three charge sheets were pending against 
D 
respondent No. 4 and had in fact also approved the same 
and yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the Seleclion 
Committee - The Selection Committee was not apprised of 
the three charge sheets at all, which was in clear breach of 
the requirements of r.5 -
Selection of respondent No.4 was 
E 
clearly faulty and, therefore, set aside - Respondent no.4 
relegated to the position he was occupying prior to his 
selection as Managing Director of Respondent no.2 - Serious 
doubt about the integrity of Respondent no.3 - Respondent 
No.1-State to hold appropriate inquiry as to why Respondent 
F 
no.3 did not place the relevant material before the Selection 
Committee and take necessary corrective measure -
Uttarakhand Peyjal Sanshadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam 
(The Post of the Managing Director) Rules, 2011 - rr. 3, 4 and 
5 - Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act as G 
applicable to the State of Uttarakhand - s. 96 rlw s.4(2-A) -
Public Corporation - Appointment in higher administrative 
positions. 
Respondent no.4 was appointed to the post of 
825 
H 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A Managing Director of Respondent no.2-Nigam pursuant 
to a decision taken by the Departmental Promotion 
Committee. The appellant, who was officiating as the 
Managing Director at the relevant time and was amongst 
the officers who were considered for promotion, filed Writ 
B petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 
to the post of Managing Director. 
The case of the appellant was that he deserved to be 
selected and not respondent No.4. He submitted that 
C three charge-sheets were pending against respondent 
No.4, and the pendency of the charge-sheets was 
certainly a factor which had to be considered while 
deciding the merit of respondent No.4. The High Court, 
however, dismissed the writ petition filed by the 
0 appellant, and therefore the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Whatever was the defence of respondent 
No.4, he ought to have replied to the charge-sheet, and 
E he could not have decided it for himself that since 
according to him, the charge-sheet was not issued by the 
Disciplinary Authority, he was going to ignore the same. 
Nothing prevented him from placing on record his view 
point that the charge-sheets were motivated. That apart, 
F as is seen from the record, the Chairman of the Nigam 
had signed on the charge-sheet approving the same and 
it is, therefore, that the Inquiry Officer had issued the 
charge-sheet. The Chairman of the Nigam is the 
Secretary of the Water Supply Department. He had taken 
G some three months' time after the note was put up to him, 
to approve the charge-sheet. He was also a Member of 
the Selection Committee which consisted of 5 senior 
officers of the State. It was surely expected of him to bring 
it to the notice of the Selection Committee that charge-
H sheets were pending against r'espondent No.4. 
BHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & 
827 
ORS. 
Respondent No.4 may have his defence on the merits of A 
the charges. The fact of pending charge-sheets ought to 
have been placed before the Selection Committee. In the 
absence of such a very vital material being placed before 
the Selection Committee, the Committee went into the 
aspect of determining the merit without having the benefit 
B 
of this vital material which was against respondent No.4. 
If these charge-sheets were made available to the 
Committee, it would have taken its decision after 
considering the same. His claim for promotion would 
have been kept in a sealed cover and he would have 
C 
been asked to wait until the enquiry was complete. [Para 
15] [840-F-H; 841-A-D] 
Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman & Ors, (1991) 4 SCC 
109 - held applicable. 
2. Respondent No. 4 was served with three charge 
sheets. The departmental proceedings will therefore have 
to 

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