RANJIT SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 885 · Decided: 05-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
RANJIT SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Disciplinaiy proceeding against employee~Enquiry 
Officer exonerating the charged employee- Disciplinary Authority differing 
with those findings-Issuance of show cause notice to employee-Thereafter, C 
dismissal order of employee passed without considering the show cause filed 
by employee prior to the communication of order-Correctness of-Held: 
Disciplinwy Authority was required to comply with the principles of natural 
justice-It was obligated to apply its mind to the materials on record in light 
of findings arrived at by Enquiry Officer-Even if the Authority had prepared 
the dismissal order, show cause could have been considered as it did not D· 
leave the office by then-Thus, Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter 
afresh in the light of show cause filed by employee by giving him an 
opportunity of personal hearing-Administrative Law. 
CBI conducted raid in the house of appellant-Inspector, Central Excise E 
and Customs Department and found that he allegedly possessed assets 
disproportionate to his known source of income. CBI initiated criminal case 
against the appellant and framed charges against him and thereafter, 
submitted a closure report. In the departmental proceeding, the Enquiry 
Officer submitted a report exonerating him from the said charges. However, 
the Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer F 
and called upon the appellant to file representation in his defence. Appellant 
sought repeated extension of time. He then filed a representation but by the 
time it reached the Disciplinary Authority, the Authority had taken decision 
to impose punishment of dismissal from service on appellant. It did not 
consider the representation of the appellant and proceeded on the basis that G 
the appellant had been given an opportunity of hearing to submit his defence. 
Both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority upheld the order 
of the Disciplinary Authority. The application filed before the tribunal and 
also the Writ Petition before the High Court were dismissed. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
885 
H 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Disciplinary 
Authority, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Principles of natural justice were required to be complied 
with by the Disciplinary Authority. He was also required to apply his mind to 
the materials on record. The Enquiry Officer arrived at findings which were 
B in favour of the Appellant. Such findings were over turned by the Disciplinary 
Authority. It is in that view of the matter, the power was sought to be exercised 
by the Disciplinary Authority, although not as that of an appellate authority, 
but akin thereto. The inquiry report was in favour of the Appellant but the 
Disciplinary Authority proposed to differ from such conclusions and, thus, 
C apart from complying with the principles of natural justice it was obligatory 
on his part, in absence of any show cause filed by the Appellant, to analyse 
the materials on records afresh. It was all the more necessary because even 
the CBI, after a thorough investigation in the matter, did not find any case 
against the Appellant and thus, filed a closure report. Therefore, it was not a 
case where the Appellant was exonerated by a criminal court after a full fledged 
0 trial by giving benefit of doubt. It was also not a case where the Appellant 
could be held guilty in the disciplinary proceedings applying the standard of 
proof as preponderance of the probability as contrasted with the standard of 
proof in a criminal trial, i.e., proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The 
Disciplinary Authority in such peculiar situation was obligated to apply his 
E mind on the materials brought on record by the parties in the light of the 
findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. He should not have relied only on 
the reasons disclosed by him in his show cause notice which, was only tentative 
in nature. [893-F-H; 894-A-Cj 
1.2. As the Appellate Authority in arriving at his finding, laid emphasis 
F on the fact that the Appellant has not filed any objection to the show cause 
notice, ordinarily, this CO'ut would not have exercised its power of judicial 
review in such a matter, but the case in hand appears to be an exceptional one 
as the Appellant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. He filed a show ca

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