LexCHAIRMAN & MD V.S.P. & ORS. versus GOPARAJU SRI PRABHAKARA HARI BABU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1184 CHAIRMAN & MD V.S.P. & ORS. v. GOPARAJU SRI PRABHAKARA HARi BABU (Civil Appeal No.1770 of 2008) MARCH 5, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) Service Law: Misconduct - Incumbent- Technician frequently C absenting from duties without leave sanctioned by authorities - Departmental proceedings - Punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage imposed - Incumbent yet again absenting from duty - Disciplinary authority found him guilty of committing misconduct and passed an· order of removal .. D from service - Challenge to - Dismissed by Single Judge of ~ · High Court - Reversed by Division Bench of High Court - ,. Correctness of - Held: Correct - Incumbent was habitual absentee - Pleaded guilty by admitting charges levelled against him - Charges having been admitted need not be E proved in terms of provisions under s.58 of Indian Evidence Act - Despite opportunity granted to him, he did not report for duty ancJ even failed to explain his prior misconduct - A subsequent explanation by delinquent cannot by itself a ground to hold that the principle . of natural justice not ,, F complied with - Hence, impugned judgment cannot be sustained, thus, set aside - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - s.58 - Principles of Natural Justice - Scope of. Power/Jurisdiction of High Court: G Order of the disciplinary authority - Power of High Court to interfere with - Held: Not to be invoked when the misconduct against delinquent stands proved. Order of the disciplinary authority - Challenge to - Jurisdiction of High Court u!A 226 of the Constitution - Held: H 1184 I CHAIRMAN & MD V.S.P. & ORS. v. GOPARAJU SRI 1185 PRABHAKARA HARi BABU On the basis of sympathy/sentiment, High Court cannot A overturn a legal order. Respondent was appointed as technician by Appellant No.1. During the probation period, he was found absent for certain period. However, a lenient view was taken by the authority and a warning was issued to B him that recurrence of such act would be viewed seriously. The incumbent again applied for leave for certain period, which was not sanctioned by the authority, but he proceeded on leave and sought for extension of leave. A departmental proceeding was again C initiated against him and a punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage was imposed. Despite this, he remained absent for a period of 99 days. Again, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The delinqu~nt admitted the charges and promised to be D regular in future. The authority found him guilty and a punishment of censure was imposed on him. Yet again, on his remaining absent for a further period of 20 days, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The authority found him guilty of the charges and ordered E his removal from service. Aggrieved, the delinquent filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court. On appeal, Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order of the Single Judge of the High Court. Hence, the present appeal. F · Appellant contended that the High Court has failed to take into consideration that while exercising the power of judicial review, the role of the High Court is limited. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Respondent was a habitual absentee. He in his explanation, in answer to the charge sheet pleaded guilty admitting the charges. In terms of Section G 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, charges having been H 1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A admitted were not required to be proved. It was on that premise that the enquiry proceeding was closed. Before the enquiry officer, he did not submit the explanation that his mother being ill. He, despite opportunities granted to report to duty, did not do it. He failed to B explain even his prior conduct. A subsequent explanation before another authority, which had not been pleaded in the departmental proceedings, cannot by itself a ground to hold that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with in the disciplinary c proceedings. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (Paras - 15-17) [1192-F, G; D 1193-D, E] Sangramsinh P Gaekwad & Ors. v. Shantadevi P Gaekwad (Dead) through LRs & Ors. 2005 (11) SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.