MATHURA PRASAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 01-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MATHURA PRASAD 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 1, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law-Misconduct-Allegation against casual labour that he 
obtained regular appointment by using fake service card-Departmental 
C enquiry-Statutory procedure t1elating to conduct of disciplinary proceeding 
as prescribed under the Rules not complied with-Held: There was an error 
of law-Hence, punishment of removal by disciplinary authority not 
sustainable-Matter remitted to disciplinary authority-Railway Servants 
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968-Rules 10(2) and 10(3). 
D 
Administrative Law-Judicial Review-Scope of-Held: Judicial review 
would lie if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record-Even 
an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the principles of judicial 
review. 
Appellant, engaged as a casual labour from time to time, was issued a 
E service card. Pursuant to a scheme of regularization, his name was short-
listed and his service card was sent for verification. The card was found to be 
fake by the Verifying Authority pursuant to which Departmental Inquiry was 
initiated. It was alleged that Appellant obtained appointment by using a fake 
service card. The Inquiry Officer reported contents of the service card to be 
correct but did not record whether the service card was genuine or fake. 
F Disciplinary authority sent back the Inquiry Report by way of a demi-official 
letter to tile Inquiry Officer, asking him to give clear remarks about every 
charge framed and re-submit the Inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer, however, 
without any further inquiry and without giving any further opportunity of 
hearing to Appellant, opined that the said service card was fake on the ground 
G that it was not issued by the RTI. Relying on the Inquiry Report, punishment 
of removal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority which was 
confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Tribunal however directed re-
instatement of Appellant but with 50% back-wages. The order was reversed 
by High Court on filing of writ petition by Respondent. 
H 
264 
MATHURA PRASAD v. U.O.I. 
265 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is A 
whether statutory procedure relating to conduct of disciplinary proceeding· 
as prescribed under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, 
were not complied with and hence the punishment of removal imposed by the 
Disciplinary authority was not sustainable. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to disciplinary authority, B 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The disciplinary authority merely sent a demi-official letter 
to the Inquiry Officer. He did not pass any order. The file was sent back to 
him for a clear remark on every point of charges framed against Appellant 
It could not have been either an order passed in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule C 
10 or sub-Rule (3) of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. 
The disciplinary authority was a statutory authority. He was, therefore, bound 
to act within the four corners of the statute. Procedures relating to conduct 
of a disciplinary proceeding have been laid down by the Rules. He was bound 
to follow the same scrupulously. It is one thing to say that he wanted the D 
Inquiry Officer to state the points to clear the said findings arrived at by him 
on each of the charges separately, but he did not have his jurisdiction to issue 
the direction under either of the sub-rules of Rule 10. Inquiry Officer held a 
further enquiry in furtherance of the direction of the disciplinary authority. 
He proceeded on the basis that his Disciplinary Authority required him to 
hold further enquiry. Inquiry Officer, therefore, pursuant thereto or in E 
furtherance of the said letter issued by the disciplinary authority could not 
have arrived at a different finding, when no further opportunity was given to 
Appellant herein and no reason was recorded therefor. Even in his report he 
arrived at the conclusion that the service card was forged only because the 
purported card had not been issued by RTJ. Whether any of the entries p 
contained in the said card was correct or not, was not verified. It could not 
have been held to have no relevance for arriving at a finding that the same 
was a forged one. (270-F-H; 271-A, BJ 
1.2. The punishment proposed was vague. The Tribunal, therefore, 
although relied on sub-Rule(3) of Rule 10, arrived at the right conclusion as G 
the matter h

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