INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ANR. versus R.K. SHEWARAMANI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 03-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ANR. 
B 
c 
v. 
R.K. SHEW ARAMANI 
AUGUST 3, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Industrial Drugs and Pharmaceutical Limited Conduct Discipline and 
Appeal Rules, 1978-Rule 30(A) (as inserted by amendment)-Departmental 
Proceedings in terms of amended provision-Initiation-Justification of-
Two previous departmental proceedings pending-Aft1endment came into 
· effect after initiation of the previous proceedings-Held : Initiation of 
proceedings under amended Rule was justified as factors necessary to bring 
in application of the Rule existed-For initiation of fresh proceedings, giving 
D 
a go by to pending proceedings not required. 
E 
F 
G 
Two charge-sheets were issued against the respondent-employee. 
While these charges were pending in departmental proceedings, action 
in terms of Rules 30(A) of Industrial Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd. 
Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (as inserted by amendment 
w.e.f. 30.3.1990) were initiated issuing show cause notice. Respondent 
replied to the notice taking the stand that employer-appellant cannot be 
permitted to by-pass the enquiry and take action on the basis of amended 
Rule 30(A). The services of the respondent were terminated. 
The Writ ~etition challenging tbe validity of amended Rule 30(A) 
and the order of termination was allowed by High Court on the grounds 
that termination order was not passed bonafide; that Rule 30(A) was not 
applicable as two departmental proceedings were pending; and that 
show cause notice was not in terms of Rule 30(A). Hence the present 
appeal.· 
Allowing the appeal; the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no requirement in lawthatforcontinuingwith fresh 
proceedings the charge sheetissuea must.indicate that the previous 
H 
proceedings pending have been given a go by. The employer is free to proceed 
14 
'( 
• 
• 
• 
INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 1'. R.K. SHEWARAMANI {PASAYAT, J.] 15 
in as many as departmental proceedings as it considers desirable. Merely 
A 
because the two proceedings were pending, that did not in any way stand in 
the way of the employer to initiate another departmental proceeding and 
that too on the basis of an amended provision which came into effect after 
initiation of the previous departmental proceeding. [19-B-C] 
2. High Court's observation that in the show cause notice there was 
no reference to Rule 30(A), is not factually correct. Additionally, the 
respondent-employee was not taken to surprise and no prejudice was 
caused to him by not mentioning of Rule"30(A) specifically. On the other 
hand, from his reply it is clearly revealed that he knew that the proceeding 
B 
was in terms of the amended Rule 30(A). His specific stand was that the 
C 
Cl)ilj)any having realized that it will not be in a position to establish the 
allegations forming foundation of the two departmental proceedings, has 
resorted to Rule 30(A). That being so, the High Court was not justified 
in drawing in adverse inference by concluding that non-mention.ofRule 
30(A) specifically in the show cause·notice vitiated the proceedings. There. 
is no dispute that factors necessary to bring in application of Rule 30(A) 
existed. The High Court was also not justified in coming to the conclusion 
that the action of the .authorities in initiating the proceedings in terms 
of Rule 30(A) is not bona fide. [19-D-GI 
D 
Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director and Ors., [1989] 3 sec 448, 
E 
. distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 5595 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment of Order dated 22.3 .2002 of the Delhi High Court 
F 
in W.P. No. 1612 of 1991. 
V.R. Reddy, Sunil Murarka, S.S. Chaudhary, Ms. Altaf Fatima and 
Ms. Meera Mathur for the Appellant. 
Ms. Deepti Singh and Rajesh Srivastava for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
ARTJIT PASAYAT, J. : Legality of the judgment rendered by a 
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is questioned by the appellants. 
H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
High Court held that the tennination of services of respondent by order dated 
8.1.1991 was illegal. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The basic facts in a nutshell are as under: 
The respondent-employee was at the relevant point of time working 
as a medical representative of appellant No. I-company which undisputedly 
is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950 
(in short the 'Constitution'). He was tran

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