BOARD OF DIRECTORS, H.P.T.C. & ANR. versus K.C. RAHI

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 20-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 97 
~ 
• 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, H.P.tC. & ANR. 
A 
II. 
K.C. RAHi 
(Civil Appeal No. 4524 of 2006) 
FEBRUARY 20, 2008 
B 
~ 
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
.J 
Constitution of India, 1950: 611'' • · 
Article 226 - Interference with findings of fact recorded c 
by Tribunal - Departmental inquiry- Notice sent to delinquent 
followed by publication in newspaper - Delinquent not 
appearing before Inquiry Officer - Ex-parte proceedings -
Charges found proved - Dismissal from service affirmed by 
Tribunal - Challenged before High Court - Order of Tribunal 
set aside by High Court holding that no proper service was D 
" 
effected on delinquent and there was violation of principle of 
natural justice - HELD: That delinquent was served with a 
notice is a finding of fact recorded by Tribunal - Therefore, 
High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 -
Power under Article 226 is to interfere only when there is E 
miscarriage of justice or an error of law on the face of re.cord 
but not to re-appreciate evidence recorded by court of first 
instance - The record clearly shows that the delinquent knew 
) 
that a departmental inquiry was initiated against him yet he 
.J 
chose not to participate in inquiry proceedings at his own risk F 
- In such event, plea of principle of natural justice is. deemed 
to have been waived and he is estopped from raising question 
of non-compliance of principle of natural justice - High Court 
fell in error in interfering with findings of fact recorded by 
Tribunal - Notice - Service of - In addition to publication in G 
newspaper - Principles of natural justice - Proper service of 
notice. 
Plea - Plea of ignorance of law - HELD: Ignorance of 
law is no excuse much less by a person who is a law graduate 
97 
H 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A himself. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4524 
of 2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2004 of 
B the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 
460/1999. 
J .S. Attri for the Appellants. 
Sudha Gupta for the Respondent. 
C 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 23.12.2004 
setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 28.06.1999 this 
appeal is preferred by the Himachal Pradesh Transport 
0 
Corporation. 
We have heard the parties. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows : 
At the relevant time the respondent was working as 
E Inspector in Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation. He was 
charge-sheeted. A notice was sent to him followed by a 
publication in the Tribune. However, the respondent did not 
participate in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry was 
proceeded ex pa rte. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 
F 22.05.1990 found him guilty of all the charges levelled against 
him. The disciplinary authority after perusing the inquiry ,report 
and after the application of mind terminated the services of the 
respondent by its order dated 16.06.1994. 
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed original application 
G before the State Administration Tribunal. One of the contentions 
raised before the Tribunal was that the inquiry proceeded ex 
parte and the order of termination is passed without hearing 
the respondent and, therefore, the order of termination suffered 
from the non-compliance of principle of natural justice. This 
H contention was repelled by the Tribunal after examining the 
• 
.... 
BOARD OF ·DIRECTORS, H.P.T.C. & ANR: v. 
99 
-I 
K.C. RAHi 
.. 
inquiry report and documents holding that the respondent was A 
served with the notice by publication in the Tribune. The Tribunal 
also held that from the representation dated 09.08. 1993 and 
19.10.1993 it would clearly show that the respondent was well 
aware of the departmental enquiry which was initiated against 
him, however, he intentionally avoided service of notice ·and did 8 
• 
not participate in the enquiry proceedings and, therefore, he 
J 
was estopped from raising the question of non-compliance 'of 
the principle of natural justice. On that premise the Tribunal 
dismissed his original application. 
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed writ petition before c 
the Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned order 
his writ petition was allowed solely on the grou1Jd that no proper 
service was effected upon the respondent and, therefore, there 
was violation of principle of natural justice. 
That the respondent was serv

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