J.A. NAIKSATAM versus PROTHONOTARY & SENIOR MASTER, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 07-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J.A. NAIKSA TAM 
v. 
PROTHONOTARY & SENIOR MASTER, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY 
AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Disciplinary proceedings-Disciplinary authority not agreeing with C 
findings of Inquiry Officer-Opportunity of personal hearing-High Court 
employees-Demanding illegal gratification-Inquiry Officer found the 
employees not guilty of charge-Disciplinary authority disagreeing with the 
saidfirzding and concluding that employees were guilty-Order of disciplinary 
authority furnished to employees and their explanation sought as to why penalty D 
of dismissal from service be not imposed-Their explanation not accepted and 
order of removal from service passed-Plea that in the event of disciplinary 
authority disagreeing with findings of inquiry officer, delinquent employees 
should have been given personal hearing-Held, on facts, copy of tentative 
decision of disciplinary authority having been given to employees and they 
having furnished their detailed explanation, principles of natural justice have E 
been fully complied with, and there is no infraction of rules nor is there any 
infirmity in the decision-Bombay High Court (Discipline and Appeal) Rules-
rr. 7 and 8. 
Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kuni Behari Misra etc., (1998) 7 SCC F 
84 and Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., [1999) 7 SCC 
739, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE J~RISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4395 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2001 of the Bombay High G 
Court in W.P. No. 1441 of 2000. 
V.N. Ganpule, Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai, C.R. Iyer and Varinder 
Kumar Sharma with him for the Appellants. 
287 
II 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
U.U. Lalit, S.S. Shinde, Arun Pednekar, Prasenjit Keswani, Nitin Sangra, 
B 
S.V. Deshpande and Mukesh K. Giri with him for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
Delay condoned in SLP (C) Nos.1243-1244 of 2003 and leave granted 
in both Special Leave Petition (c) No.1241 of2003 and Special Leave Petition 
(c) Nos.1243-1244 of 2003. 
These appeals have been preferred against the impugned final judgment 
C of the Division Bench dated 22nd December, 1999 of the High Court of 
Bombay in the Writ Petitions filed by the two employees of the High Court 
of Bombay, who were dismissed from service. The appellants were working 
as senior translators in the office of the Chief Translator of the High Court. 
In July, 1997 one Ms. Vasanti Joshi, who was practicing as an advocate in 
the Bombay Courts filed a complaint alleging that the translators working in 
D the office of the Chief Translator had been indulging in corrupt practices and 
for obtaining official translation of the documents these translators had been 
demanding illegal gratification. Pursuant to the complaint, the High Court 
directed an inquiry by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of the High Court 
and he examined some of the witnesses and based on the information collected 
E by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, disciplinary proceedings were initiated 
against these two appellants. 
An Additional Registrar of the High Court was appointed as an Enquiry 
Officer. The appellants were given opportunity to submit their written 
representations before the Enquiry Officer. The gist of allegation levelled 
F against these two appellants was that Ms. Vasanti Joshi gave three documents 
in Marathi and one document in Gujarati for being translated into English 
and the appellants in both the appeals demanded a sum ofRs.650 and Rs.350 
as bribe. The Enquiry Officer, after a detailed enquiry, found that these 
appellants were not guilty of the charge framed against them. The report was 
G placed before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority disagreed 
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and came to the cqnclusion that 
these 3ppellants were guilty of having demanded the illegal gratification 
from the complainant. A copy of the tentative decision was furnished to these 
appellants and they were asked to give explanation as to why the report given 
by the Enquiry Officer shall be accepted. Pursuant to that notice, the appellants 
H herein gave a detailed explanation and they prayed that the report of the 
J.A. NAIKSATAM 1•. PROTHONOTARY & SENIOR MASTER, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY 
289 
Enquiry Officer may be accepted and the proceedings be dropped against A 
them. It may be mentioned that the appellants
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.