GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR. versus GEORGE PHILIP

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 16-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
GEORGE PHILIP 
NOVEMBER 16, 2006 
B 
[G.P. MA THUR AND DAL VEER BHANDARJ, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Dismissal-Absence from duty and overstay of leave-Enquiry' Officer 
C found employee guilty of charges-Punishment of dismissal-Tribunal affirmed 
the finding of enquiry officer but quashed dismissal on the ground of same 
being disproportionate to the charges-Directed competent authority to 
consider question of quantum of punishment afresh-Thereafter competent 
authority passed order of compulsory retirement-Challenged-Order of 
D reinstatement by Tribunal, upheld by High Court-Correctness of-Held: Not 
correct-The only issue before Tribunai was quantum of punishment-Findings 
in enquily having been affirmed by Tribunal at first instai1ce, it was not open 
to Tribunal while hearing application challenging order of compuls01y 
retirement, to go into question regarding establishment of charge against 
employee-On facts, order of compulsory retirement not disproportionate to 
E the charge so as to warrant inte1ference-CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965-Rule 
3(/)(iii). 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 51 A OJ-Employee undertook to join after expiry of leave period 
F but did not join back-High Court granted six months time to report for 
duty-Propriety of-Held, not proper-Granting six months time to join duty 
amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive 
of the work culture in the organization-Courts not to pass such orders 
~: 
which instead of achieving underlying spirit and objects of Part JV-A of 
G Constitution has the tendency to negate or destroy the same. 
H 
Article 226-Judicial review-Scope of-Discussed. 
The respondent was working as scientific officer in Bhaba Atomic 
Research Centre (BARC). He was granted scholarship by Ministry of 
108 
-
GOVT. OF INDIA v. GEORGE PHILIP 
109 
Education for advance research training in Plasma Physics. He applied for A 
leave for 2 years for the said purpose. The department by Order dated 8.2. 1982 
sanctioned leave to the respondent. The order clearly stated that the 
extraordinary leave was being granted subject to the condition that the 
respondent would not register himself for Ph.D. degree and that no extension 
of leave beyond 2 years would be granted. The respondent gave an undertaking 
to this effect. However, after the expiry of leave period, he did not join the B 
duty. His request for extension of leave on the ground that he had enrolled 
himself for Ph.D. degree and his work was not complete, was turned down. 
The Department sent him 8 notices asking him to report for duty but he did 
not comply with the directions. He reported for duty on 10.12.1986 after more 
than two years of expiry of leave period. 
C 
In the departmental enquiry the respondent was held guilty of the 
charges of absence from duty and overstay of leave and accordingly the 
punishment of removal from service was imposed by the competent authority 
on 18.12.1990. The Tribunal by its order dated 6.1.1994 affirmed the findings 
recorded by the enquiry officer but merely quashed the order of punishment, D 
as in its opinion, it was disproportionate to the charge and directed for a fresh 
consideration limited to the question of punishment. Thereafter, an order of 
compulsory retirement from service was passed against the respondent. This 
order was also challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal and the 
Tribunal by its order dated 17.9.1994 directed reinstatement with full back E 
wages treating the period of removal from service till reinstatement as period 
spent on duty for all purposes. 
The appellants filed Writ Petition before the High Court, whereby it 
was directed that if the respondent reports for duty within a period of six 
months, he shall be reinstated in service, but he will not be entitled to any F 
back wages. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the Tribunal having 
affirmed the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in its first order dated 
6.1.1994, it was not open to the Tribunal to take a contrary view at the second 
stage when the order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the G 
respondent and it could not have gone into the merits of the case; that having 
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment of 
compulsory retirement from service imposed upon the respondent could not 
be said to be disproportionate to the gravamen of the charge or suffering from 
illegality whic

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