LexBRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 333
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8323of2016)
AUGUST 26, 2016
[ANIL R. DAVE, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.)
Service Law:
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. 1972 - r. 9(2J(b)(ii) -
Scope of - 7il'o disciplinary proceedings first relating to missing of
arms and ammunitions und second relating to supply to contraband
ganja - l11i1iated against 1he appellant while he was in service - The
disciplinary proceedings ll'ere quashed by the High Court - In the
meantime delinque111 retired ji-0111 service - Pursuant to his retirement
fi·esh departmental inquiries initiated ajier obtaining sanction from
the President of India ult: 9(2){b){i) of the I 972 Rules - Single Judge
of High Court held the fresh departmental proceedings as barred
by limitation as per 1:9(2)(b){ii) - Division Bench of High Court set
aside the decision of single Judge - On appeal, Held: As per
r.9(2)(b){ii) the disciplinary proceedings are burred by limitation
and hence are liable to be quashed - Howeve1; having regard to
the seriousness of the allegations made ugainst the delinquent, in
exercin of power u!Art. 142, the Disciplinary Authority is directed
to continue the disciplinary proceedings - Constitution of India -
Art.142.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
A
B
c
D
E
F
HELD: 1. A perusal of r. 9(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
makes it clear that ifthe disciplinary proceedings are not instituted
against the Government servant by the disciplinary authority
while he was in service, then the prior sanction of the President
G
of India is required to institute such proceedings against such a
person. It is also clear that such sanction shall not be in respect
of an event which took place more than four years before the
institution of such disciplinary proceedings.
[Para 33) [351-H;
352-A-B)
333
H
334
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 6 S.C.R.
2. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from
service on 31.08.2006. The Single Judge of the High Court by
way of judgment and order dated 18.05.2006 in Writ Petition No.
720 of 2002 quashed the disciplinary proceedings in the case
pertaining to the missing arms and ammunitions. However, liberty
was granted to the Disciplinary Authority/Enquiry Officer to
conduct the disciplinary enquiry afresh after supplying the copies
of the proceedings of the enquiry to the appellant. The said
judgment and order of the Single Judge was challenged by the
respondents by way of Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2006, in which the
Division Bench, by ,iudgment and order dated 07.11.2006 upheld
the order of the single judge of the High Court. It was only
pursuant to this that the fresh memorandum of charges dated
22.08.2008 was issued to the appellant, which was clearly beyond
the period of limitation of four years as provided for under the
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. [Para 34) (352-B-D]
3. In the case involving the contraband ganja as well, the
Single Judge of the High Court by way of judgment and order
dated 16.06.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 805 of 2005 quashed
the departmental enquiry under the memorandum of charges
dated 14.05.1998. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal
No. 25 of 2007 filed by the respondents vide judgment and order
dated 13.11.2008 and upheld the order of the Single Judge. It
was pursuant to this that the fresh departmental enquiry was
initiated against the appellant on 16.10.2009 after obtaining
sanction from the President of India under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. [Para 34] (352-E-F]
4. It is a well established principle oflaw that if the manner
of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute then the
act must be done in that manner or not at all. (Para 35] [353-B)
Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar Council of Kera/a & Ors.
(1999) 3 SCC 422: 1999 (1) SCR 1121- relied on.
5. The Division Bench of the High Court failed to
appreciate the fact that liberty had been granted by the High Court
vide its judgment and order dated 07.11.2006 in W.A. (C) No. 45
of 2006 to the Disciplinary Authority to take disciplinary action
against the appellant. Thus, there was no need for the respondent
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM v. UNION OF INDIA AND
335
ANR.
Disciplinary Authority to withdraw the Memorandum of Charges
dated 14.05.1998 for the purpose of initiating disciplinary
proceedings afresh against the appellant on the sameExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.