RAM KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 20-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
+ 
RAM KUMAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
AUGUST 20, 1987 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Services: Departmental enquiry-Punishing authority 
accepting finding of Enquiry Officer and reasons in support of 
finding-Order of termination by a non-speaking order-Whether 
valid. 
The service of the appellant, a bus conductor, was terminated 
consequent upon the enquiry conducted into allegations of non-issue of 
tickets to nine passengers, though fare was collected from each of them. 
A suit filed by the appellant, contending that the order of termination 
was illegal and void and was opposed to the principles of natural justice, 
c 
as no reason was given in the order, was dismissed by the trial court. It D 
was also held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and 
try the suit. 
The Additional District Judge, on appeal, held that the Civil 
Conrt had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and set aside the 
\;a_ 
impugned order of termination as invalid as it was a non-speaking 
E 
-
order not containing any reason. 
In second appeal, the High Court affirmed the finding of the 
Additional District Judge as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but 
set aside his finding that the impugned order was a non-speaking order 
and held that it was quite legal and valid. 
F 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
appellant that the punishing authority had not applied his mind before 
passing the impugned order, which was apparent from I.he fact that he 
had not given any reason in justification thereof and this had vitiated 
the impugned order of termination. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: When the punishing authority agrees with the findings of 
the Enquiry Officer who accepts the reasons given by him in support of 
such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again 
H 
1057 
1058 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
) 
A discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the Enquiry 
Officer and give the same reasons for the-findings. [1060E] 
In the instant case, it is difficult to say that the punishing au tho-
rity had not applied bis mind. The punishing authority bas placed 
reliance upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, which means he has not 't' 
B only agreed with the &dings of the Enquiry Officer hut also accepted 
the reasons given by him for the same. When the punishing authority 
-,., 
has accepted the rmdings of the Enquiry Officer and the reasons given 
by him, the question of non-compliance with the principles of natural 
justice does not arise. [1060E-F] 
-
c 
It cannot be said that the impugned order is not a speaking order 
'r 
and is vitiated. [1060F] 
[In view of the fact that it is the first offence of the appellant, who 
is said to be the father of five minor children and bas no other means of 
livelihood, the respondent may consider the re-employment of the 
D appellant to the post of Conductor or to any other post, to which be may 
,.. 
be found to be suitable.] [1060G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1870 
of 1982. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1981 of the Punjab and 
_.,, 
Haryana High Court in R.S. A. No. 1556 of 1980. 
-
V.M. Tarkunde and Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. 
y 
S.C. Mohanta, Mahavir Singh and C.V. Subba Rao for the 
F 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUTI', J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant, a Bus 
Conductor of the Haryana Roadways, has challenged the validity of 
-I 
G 
the order o( termination of his service on the ground of failure of the 
punishing authority to give any reason for the impugned order in viola-
tion of the principles of natural justice. 
A charge was levelled against the appellant that he did not issue 
tickets to nine passengers, although he had taken the fare from each of 
H them. A disciplinary proceeding was started against the appellant. The 
}-
t 
• r 
-
'{ 
"(' 
\t .. 
--
1 
RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA [DUTT, J.) 
1059 
Enquiry Officer, after considering the allegations constituting the A 
charge, the plea of the appellant in defence and the evidence adduced 
by the parties including the appellant, held that the charge against the 
appellant was proved. The punishing authority agreed with the find-
ings of the Enquiry Officer and by the impugned order terminated the 
service of the appellant. 
B 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a suit challenging the legality of 
the order of

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