LexDELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1175 : 2024 INSC 564 Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ashok Kumar Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2014) 18 July 2024 [Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in upholding the order passed by the tribunal setting aside the dismissal of the charged officer. Headnotes† Administrative law – Disciplinary proceedings – Mandatory compliances by the disciplinary authority – On facts, memorandum of charge issued to the officer – Disciplinary enquiry held and seven out of the eight charges proved against the charged officer – Issuance of notice to the charged officer – Thereafter, the charged officer dismissed from service – Challenge to – Tribunal set aside the dismissal order – Said order upheld by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Disciplinary Authority must indicate an independent application of mind to the findings in the enquiry report followed by opportunity of hearing to the charged officer and only thereafter, the order imposing a major penalty like dismissal from service can be passed against the charged officer – On facts, action of the Corporation in dismissing the charged officer from service suffered from fatal lacuna of having been arrived at with sheer non- application of mind in addition to being non-speaking – Neither of the two mandatory compliances carried out – Other than giving a blind approval to the show cause notice and the agenda item albeit referring to the reply of the charged officer, the Board’s Resolution did not reflect any independent or objective application of mind by the members of the Board to the enquiry report either individually or collectively – Enquiry report sufferred from a fatal lacuna which goes to the root of the matter thereby vitiating the proceedings – No witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution during the course of departmental enquiry – Enquiry report nowhere records that any document was admitted by the charged officer – Since no evidence was led on behalf of the department in the enquiry 1176 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports proceedings, the enquiry report was based on no evidence whatsoever – Thus, no error by the tribunal in allowing the application filed by the charged officer and the High Court rightly upheld the same. [Paras 3, 16, 19, 21, 22] Case Law Cited A.L. Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. [1984] 3 SCR 646 : (1984) 3 SCC 316; Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others [2008] 17 SCR 1476 : (2009) 2 SCC 570 – referred to. List of Acts DTC Meeting Regulations, 1981. List of Keywords Administrative law; Disciplinary proceedings; Disciplinary authority; Memorandum of charge; Disciplinary enquiry; Dismissal from service; Opportunity of hearing; Non-speaking order; Enquiry report. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2013 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) No. 7661 of 2010 Appearances for Parties Dr. Monika Gusain, Avinash Ahlawat, Ms. Gyanvi, Avi Dhankhar, Advs. for the Appellant. Respondent-in-person. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant-Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Corporation’) for assailing the judgment dated 12th March, 2013 rendered by the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the W.P.(C) No. 7661 of 2010 preferred by the appellant-Corporation questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and final order dated 1st July, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1177 Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ashok Kumar Sharma New Delhi (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal accepted the Original Application (for short ‘OA’) No. 1592 of 2009 filed by the respondent (hereinafter being referred to as ‘charged officer’) and set aside the order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘CMD’) thereby, dismissing the respondent from service. 2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 3. Ex facie, we find that the action of the appellant-Corporation in dismissing the respondent from service suffered from fatal lacuna of having been arrived at with sheer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.