PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus LEELA SINGH

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1139 · Decided: 22-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
LEELA SINGH 
JANUARY 22, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Service Law : Departmental Proceedings-Experience certificate-
Inquiry regarding genuineness of-Meanwhile Admin.istrative Member of 
State Electricity Board ordering the employee concerned to be continued 
and to deduct one year's service-Later, in a similar case, Board directing c 
termination of services of such employees-Consequently, servic2 of 
employee concerned also terminated-Held, services of employee concerned 
could not have been terminated on basis of decision of Board in the case 
of another employee-Board directed to initiate departmental proceedings 
against employee concerned-In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 
D 
r 
of the Constitution, order of Administrative Member of the Board is also 
set aside-Constitution of India-Article 142. 
Respondent was appointed as lineman on the basis of an experience 
certificate in regard to genuineness whereof a vigilance inquiry was made. 
E 
Meanwhile, on the representation of the respondent, the Administrative 
Member of the appellant-Punjab State Electricity Board, by his order dated 
15.6.2001, allowed him to be continued after deducting one year's service. 
Later, in a similar case of another employee, the Board directed services 
of similarly placed employees to be terminated. Consequently, services of 
...._ 
the respondent were terminated. However, his writ petition was allowed by 
F 
)-
the High Court. Aggrieved, the Board filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The charge against the respondent is that he has committed 
G 
fraud in obtaining the appointment by production of a forged experience 
certificate. The said charge was required to be proved in a duly constituted 
-
) 
departmental proceeding. The services of the appellant could not have been 
directed to be terminated relying on and/or on the basis of the decision of 
the Board in the case of another employee. Interest of justice will be sub-
H 
1139 
1140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
served if the appellant-Board is directed to initiate a departmental proceeding 
against the resp,ondent herein. Ordered accordingly 
B 
[Paras 5 and 6] [1141-D-F] 
2. Since the order dated 15.6.2001 of the Administrative Member of 
the appellant-Board has been given effect to, in exercise of jurisdiction 
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the said order is set aside 
also having regard to the fact that the Administrative Member of the 
appellant-Board alone could not have issued the same. This order is being 
passed in view of the well settled principle of law that if by reason of setting 
aside an illegal order, any other illegality is revived, the Court would be 
C 
entitled to quash both the orders. [Para 7] [1141-G-H] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 486 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment/Order dated 17 .8.2005 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in C.W.P. No. 17530/2004. 
Satinder S. Gulati, Kamaldeep Kaur and Dr. Kailash Chand for the 
Appellants. 
Sanjeev .Sharma, Gopal Dutt and A.P. Mohanty for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was ·delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. : l. Leave Granted. 
2. Respondent herein was appointed as a Lineman in the Punjab State 
Electricity Board. He was appointed on the basis of a purported experience 
certificate produced by him. A vigilance enquiry was made in regard to the 
genuiness thereof. However, before a regular departmental proceeding could 
be initiated, the respondent made a representation to the Administrative 
Member of the Appellant-Board on 15.6.2001, alleging that as he had been 
appointed long time back and despite the fact that he _had submitted original 
certificates as demanded of him, he had not been given promotion and other 
financial benefits. The Administrative Member of the appellant-Board directed 
that the services of the respondent should be allowed to be continued after 
deducting one year's service. The said order is said to have been acted 
H ·upon. 
J.. 
·( "' 
--
! 
... 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. LEELA SINGH [SINHA, J.] 1141 
3. However, the Chairman of the appellant-Board having come across 
a similar problem in the case of another employee, directed the matter to be 
placed before the entire Board. It was decided that the services of similarly 
placed employees should be terminated apart from the employee c

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