INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. versus AJAY KUMAR

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 27-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
AJAY KUMAR 
FEBRUARY 27, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Indian Railway Construction Company Limited (Conduct, Discipline and 
Appeal) Rules, 1981-Rules 23 and 30-Passing of dismissal order dispensing C 
with enquiry-Judicial review-Scope of-Held: Courts below not examining 
the question as to practicability or holding the eriquiry in correct perspective-
Reasons to dispense with enquiry not proper-Alleged acts of mis-conduct 
have ~ot been disbelieved thus, employer can legitimately raise the plea of 
losing confidence on the employee, warranting his nonccontini.tance in D 
employment-Payment of back wages-Directions issued-Constitution of 
India-Article 3JJ(2). 
Appellant alleged that when the respondent-employee was on 
probation, he assaulted a senior officer and ransacked the office. 
Thereafter without' holding any enquiry dismissal order was passed. E 
Respondent alleged that dismissal order was outcome of victimization on 
account of his union activities and challenged the order on the ground that 
it was violative of law and at variance with the requirement of Article 
311(2) of the Constitution for not holding the enquiry. Single Judge of High 
Court held that enquiry could not be dispensed with; that protection under F 
Article 311(2) was available; and that non observance of the procedure 
vitiated the order. Hence he quashed the order. Division Bench held that 
Article 311(2) was not attracted. It however, upheld the judgment of the 
Single Judge on the limited judicial review, that the order of dispensation 
with enquiry was not sustainable. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-employer contended that the Division Bench was not 
justified in upholding the conclusions of the Single Judge about the scope 
of judicial review; that merely because the enquiry would have taken some 
time, or the aggressive and violent manner in which employees were 
387 
G 
H 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 2 S.C.R. 
A threatened leading to an irresistible conclusion that witnesses would not 
have come forward to give evidence during the course of enquiry, would 
not be a valid ground for dispensing with enquiry in all cases; that if there 
is material with the concerned authority that there is likelihoo<I of 
witnesses not coming forward due to threats, coercion, undue influence 
B etc. certainly it would be a germane ground for dispensing with enquiry, 
and to hold that it would not be possible to hold a fair enquiry; that even 
when he was on probation, he assaulted a senior officer, created a scene 
of terror, co-employees were threatened and even a lady employee was 
not spared; and that Union activities are meant to present views of 
employees before the employer for their consideration but same is not 
C intended to be done in a vi(1lent form; decency and decorum are required 
to be maintained. 
Respondent-employee contended that the facts are telltale and the 
background highlighted by the respondent in the writ petition clearly 
shows that management was bent upon dismissing him for his union 
D activities which was sufficient to prove ma/a fides and even if no particular 
person was impleaded the management acted in unison through some of 
its officers for his dismissal from employment; that though there was no 
assertion in the writ petition that the alleged incident did not take place, 
the same was on account of the fact that the employee was not aware of 
E the alleged incident, in fact, the order dispensing with enquiry surfaced 
much later and in the rejoinder affidavit it was pleaded that plea relating 
to loss of confidence cannot be permitted to be raised, as every employer 
can take the plea and thereby crush the employee's right to raise legitimate 
demands through unions; that there has been a long passage of time and 
it would not be appropriate, even if it is conceded that there were some 
F infirmities in the order of High Court, to start the process afresh; and 
that passage of time is a factor which would warrant dismissal of the 
appeal and confirmation of the High Court's order; and that High Court 
was correct in holding that dismissal order was illegal. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. Administrative action is stated to be referable to broad 
area of Governmental activities in which the repositories of power may · 
exercise eve.ry class of statutory function of executive, quasi-legislativ

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