LexBHUPINDERPAL SINGH GILL versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 804 : 2025 INSC 83 Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Others (Civil Appeal No. 183 of 2025) 20 January 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned order of the High Court, in which the Disciplinary Authority’s order imposing penalty and the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant have merged, warrants any interference on any of the grounds available for judicial review; whether the objection by the respondent that limited notice having been issued at the time of admission of the intra-court appeal and the appellant’s grievance being addressed, this Court ought not to enlarge the scope of the appeal has any substance. Headnotes† Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1970) – r.8 – Disciplinary action was initiated against the appellant-Senior Medical Officer 11 days prior to his retirement alleging that he committed misconduct by proceeding on leave without it being sanctioned; defying the directions of the Election Commission and the higher authorities; not participating in the pulse polio programme; threatening legal action against Senior Assistant of the Civil Surgeon – Disciplinary Authority ordered a cut in pension – High Court modified the punishment – Interference with: Held: On facts, there is no legal evidence on the basis of which the appellant can be held guilty of the charges that he had proceeded on leave without sanction thereof and did not comply with the orders of his superior officers – The charge as regards the appellant having threatened the Senior Assistant is also not proved – Further, it is the clear finding of the Inquiry Officer that the appellant was not assigned any duty in connection with election duty and pulse polio programme during the period he wished to avail leave to attend court proceedings before the High Court – Insofar as defiance of * Author [2025] 1 S.C.R. 805 Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Others Election Commission’s directions by the appellant are concerned, no such written directions were part of the documentary evidence led before the Inquiry Officer – Impugned order of the Division Bench, the order of dismissal passed by the Single Judge as well as the order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority, set aside – Appellant entitled to full pension without any cut, the deduction made so far to be returned as directed – Costs of Rs.50,000/- awarded to the appellant. [Paras 38, 39, 42, 45] Practice and Procedure – Limited notice issued at the stage of admission – Enlargement of the scope of petition/appeal during final hearing not barred – Objection by the respondent that limited notice having been issued at the time of admission of the intra-court appeal by the High Court and the appellant’s grievance being addressed, this Court ought not to enlarge the scope of the appeal: Held: Objection is without any substance – Issuing limited notice at the stage of admission does not bar a Constitutional Court having inherent powers to enlarge the scope of a petition/appeal at the stage of final hearing particularly when enforcement of any Fundamental/Constitutional right is urged by the party approaching it – Any observation that the court makes while entertaining the petition/appeal by issuing limited notice is tentative which cannot limit the court’s jurisdiction to consider the controversy, as raised, in its entire perspective – Whether or not the court would enlarge the scope is, however, a question largely dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 19] Disciplinary proceedings/Inquiry proceedings – Punishment orders – Interference with – Principles governing – Discussed – Judicial review – Constitution of India – Article 226. [Para 33] Disciplinary proceedings/Inquiry proceedings – Principles of Natural Justice, discussed – Plea of the appellant that the process of decision-making was vitiated for lack of procedural fairness: Held: Validity of disciplinary action is to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable – To test whether interference is warranted, the scrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly; if not, then it has caused prejudice to the charged 806 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports employee – In the present case, the appellant submitted a d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.