INDU BHUSHAN DWIVEDI versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 05-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 465 
INDU BHUSHAN DWIVEDI 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4888 of 2010) 
JULY 05, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Misconduct - Charges of insubordination 
and indiscipline against appellant-Judicial Magistrate -
Proved in disciplinary inquiry - High Court recommended C 
dismissal of appellant, after taking into consideration his past 
adverse record, but without informing him that the same were 
being relied upon for deciding the quantum of punishment -
Dismissal challenged as being vitiated due to violation of the 
rules of natural justice - A/so, quantum of punishment D 
challenged as being totally disproportionate to the charges 
found proved against the appellant - Held: Since the un-
communicated adverse remarks contained in the Annual 
Confidential Reports of the appellant became foundation of 
the decision taken by the High Court to recommend his 
E 
dismissal from service and he was not noticed about the 
proposed consideration of those remarks, it must be held that 
the appellant was seriously prejudiced -Also, the charges 
proved were not that serious which warranted imposition of the 
extreme penalty of dismissal from service -
High Court 
F 
directed to consider the issue of quantum of punishment 
afresh and make fresh recommendation to State Government 
after giving an opportunity to the appellant to make 
appropriate representation - Natural justice - Rule of audi 
alteram partem - Violation of. 
The appellant was a Sub-Divisional Judicial 
Magistrate. Regular departmental Inquiry was held 
against him on three charges, viz. 1) that after having 
consumed liquor, he had misbehaved and manhandled 
465 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A an accused and a constable; 2) that he had left the 
headquarters without seeking permission from the 
Registrar General of the High Court in violation of the 
direction contained in an order given by it and 3) that he 
had used derogatory words qua the communication sent 
B by the High Court. 
The first charge was not found to be proved. The 
other two charges were however found proved by the 
Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the High Court recommended 
the dismissal of appellant from service. The 
C recommendation was accepted by the State Government. 
Appellant filed writ petition before the Division Bench 
of the High Court, contending that the dismissal order 
was vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice 
D because while recommending his dismissal from service, 
the High Court had considered un-communicated 
adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential 
Reports of the appellant without informing him that the 
same were being relied upon for deciding the quantum 
E of punishment. Another ground taken by the appellant 
was that the punishment of dismissal from service was 
totally disproportionate to the charges found proved 
against him. The Division Bench of the High Court set 
aside the punishment of dismissal but imposed upon the 
F appellant the punishment of compulsory retirement. 
Before this Court, the appellant urged that the action 
taken against him was not only against the basics of 
natural justice but was wholly arbitrary, unreasonable 
and unjustified. The appellant submitted that even if the 
G findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of two 
charges are held to be correct, there was no justification 
to impose the punishment of dismissal ignoring that in 
his long service career he was not found guilty of any 
other act of insubordination or indiscipline. The appellant 
H argued that when charge no.1, which was extremely 
INDU BHUSHAN DWIVEDI v. STATE OF 
467 
JHARKHAND AND ANR. 
serious in nature was not found proved, the High Court 
A 
could not have imposed extreme penalty of dismissal 
from service by simply relying upon un-communicated 
adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential 
Reports. 
B 
The appellant contended that the Division Bench of 
the High Court should have set aside the order which 
was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition and 
directed the respondents to pass fresh orders after 
communicating adverse remarks to the appellant and 
C 
giving him an opportunity to explain his position. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. One of the basic canons of justice is that 
no one can be condemned unheard and no order D 
prejudicially affecting any person can be passed by a 
public authority without affording h

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