KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGTHAN AND ANR. versus S.C. SHARMA

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 11-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KENDRIY A VIDY ALAYA SANG A THAN AND ANR. 
V. 
S.C. SHARMA 
JANUARY 11, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965; 
Rule 19(ilj: 
C 
Application for earned leave with permission to go abroad submitted by 
employee, a Principal-Rejected by Sanctioning Authority-Employee did not 
report for duty for a long period-Disciplinary proceedings-Termination of 
services without holding regular enquiry-Correctness of-Held: Since no 
reasons recorded by the authorities for not holding the enquiry, the basic 
D requirements for application of Rule I 9(ii) not complied with-Hence, Order 
of the Courts below in quashing the order of the authority terminating the 
services of the employee, does not suffer from any infirmity. 
l- ,, 
..... 
Respondent-employee, a Principal in the appellant-Organisation, 
" 
applied for·sanction of earned leave with permission to go abroad. It was 
E rejected by the sanctioning authority. However, the respondent did not 
report for duty for quite a long period. In the meantime, disciplinary 
proceedings against him was initiated by the authorities and he was 
declared absconding from duty and consequently his services were 
terminated by invoking Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services 
(Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. Appeal against the order was 
F dismissed by the Appellate Authorities. Respondent challenged the decision 
of the Authorities by filing a petition before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal (CAT). CAT quashed the order holding that since basic 
requirements of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules were not complied with, authorities 
were not justified in imposing penalty on the respondent. However, liberty 
G was granted to the appellant-employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings 
from the stage of serving charge-sheet on the respondent and further 
directed them to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential 
benefits including back wages. On appeal, the order was affirmed by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
374 
-
r 
KENDRIYA VIDYALA YA SAN GA THAN 1·. S.C. SHARMA 
375 
It was contended by the appellant that the respondent by giving false A 
addresses avoided to receive notices; that since the respondent was not 
responding to various notices, it clearly shows that he had abandoned the 
job; that even though leave was not granted he did not report on duty in 
spite of directions to do so, thus holding a detailed enquiry was not 
necessary; that back wages can not be treated as a natural consequence B 
whenever an order of termination is set aside by the Courts; that without 
any pleadings or evidence direction for back wages could not have been 
given and that direction for payment of back wages should have been made 
conditional. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The basic requirement for application of Rule 19(ii) in 
the background of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, 
Control and Appeal) Rules is that a conclusion has to be reccrded that it 
c 
is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry proceedings. Such a 
finding does not appear to have been recorded. Therefore, the views D 
expressed by CAT as affirmed by the High Court do not suffer from any 
-, 
infirmity. (378-FJ 
-+ 
1.2. When the question of determining the entitlement of a person 
to back wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not 
gainfully employed. The initial burden is on him. After and if he places E 
materials in that regard, the employer can bring on record materials to 
rebut the claim. In the instant case, the respondent had neither pleaded 
nor placed any material in that regard. Hence the respondent was not 
entitled to full back wages which according to the High Court was natural 
consequence. That part of the High Court order is set aside. (379-D-EJ 
F 
P.G./. of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar, 
JT (2001) l SC 336; Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya 
and Anr., (2002] 6 SCC 41; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay 
Kumar, (2003] 4 SCC 579 and MP. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee, 
(Smt.), (2003] 6 sec 141, relied on. 
G 
2. Since the present appeal arises from proceedings declaring the 
--;. 
respondent as "Absconder" it is clarified that if the appellants are desirous 
of initiating any departmental proceedings in terms of CA T's order they 
can do so within two months, if not alrea

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