CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D., T.N.C.S. CORPN. LTD. AND ORS. versus K. MEERABAI

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 23-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D., T.N.C.S. CORPN. LTD. AND ORS. 
V. 
K. MEERABAI 
JANUARY 23, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Dismissal-Judicial review--Scope and ambil of--Disciplinary and 
C criminal prvceedings-lnterconneclion be/ween· -Employee alleged to have 
misappropriated Corpora/ion's stock and money through fraudulent practices-
Employee suspended pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against 
her-A criminal complaint was also filed against the employee---After a fu/1-
fledged enquiry in which the employee fully participated, Disciplinary Authority 
D dismissed her from service- ./n the meanwhile employee acquitted of charges 
in criminal proceedings-High Court quashed order of dismissal and directed 
employee's reinstatement on the ground that the acquittal of the employee 
ought to have been taken into consideralion by 1he Disciplinary Authority 
while dismissing her from service--Correctness of-Held: The scope of criminal 
and disciplinary proceedings in a departmenlal enquiry are quite dislinct, 
E exclusive and independent of each other-Moreover. lhe employee was 
proceeded against in 1he criminal and disciplinary proceedings on to/ally 
different sels of facls-ln lhe ins/ant case, employee was found guilty of 
misapproprialing lhe Corpora/ion funds-There is nothing wrong in 1he 
Corpora/ion losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding 
F punishment of dismissal-The scope of judicial review in such cases is very• 
limited--Hence, High Courl 's 1udgmen1 sel aside and lhe order of the 
Disciplinary Aulhority reslored. 
The respondent was appointed as a Bill Clerk in the service of the 
appellant-Corporation and was promoted as a Junior Assistant and was 
G posted in the Godown. The respondent was suspended pending initiation 
of disciplinary proceedings against her in respect of misappropriation of 
the Corporation's stock and money, committed by her in collusion with 
' 
" 
other members of the staff through fraudulent practices. 
A criminal complaint was filed against the respondent and other staff 
H 
5~ 
L 
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MD. TNCS CORPN. LTD. v. K.MEERABAI 
54 J 
members for offences under Sections 409 and 477-A of the Penal Code, A 
1860. After a full-fledged enquiry in which the respondent fully 
participated, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from 
service. In the meanwhile, the respondent was acquitted of the charges 
under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC. However, the High Court directed 
reinstatement of the respondent. Hence the appeal. 
The following questions arose before the Court:-
(I) Whether the High Court has gravely erred in law in holding that 
the acquittal of the respondent ought to have been taken into consideration 
B 
by the disciplinary authority while dismissing the respondent from service? C 
(2) Whether the High Court has gravely erred in law in interfering 
with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate D 
authority are exhaustive in details, impeccable on facts and armed with 
irrefutable reasons in support of the conclusions. 1550-H; 551-A-BI 
2.(a) The scope of the criminal proceedings and the scope of 
disciplinary proceedings in a departmental enquiry are quite distinct, E 
exclusive and independent of each other. 1551-8-C] 
(b) The criminal proceedi~s and the disciplinary proceedings were 
on totally different sets of facts and charges. 
(c) The order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and F 
the order of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the respondent's 
Departmental Appeal, are exhaustive orders incorporating the statement 
of the correct and relevant facts of the case and impeccable conclusions 
based on dispassionate appreciation of the evidence on record and 
supported by legally irrefutable reasons. 1551-D-Ef 
3. The High Court failed to consider and appreciate dispassionately 
and judicially the Corporation's most emphatically pronounced plea that 
G 
it would be virtually impossible for them to reinstate the respondent who 
was found in the departmental enquiry guilty of misappropriation and 
other malpractices causing thereby enormous loss in stock and cash to the 
Corporation and her dismissal from service has been upheld by the H 
542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20061 I S.C.R. 
A appellate authority vide its very detailed, well-considered and well-
reasoned verdict and in whose

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