S. LOGANATHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 16-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA, H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1081 
S. LOGANATHAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9829 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 16, 2011 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Central Civil 
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 -
Rule 14 - Departmental Inquiry against appellant, a Junior C 
Clerk in the Subordinate Court - Appellant filed response by 
way of defence, but after some time, did not participate in the 
inquiry -
Departmental inquiry continued ex-parte -
Subsequently, on objection of appellant that he had not been 
provided adequate opportunity, ex-parte departmental inquiry 
D 
was re-called and the inquiry started de novo - After full 
participation by the appellant thereafter in the departmental 
inquiry, some of the charges were found fully proved while 
some were held-partiall-ypro1rea oy the mqwfy Officer:_ The 
Chief Judge on consideration of the report submitted by the 
E 
Inquiry Officer, awarded to the appellant penalty of dismissal 
from the service - Appellant challenged that order before the 
High Court by filing a Writ Petition -
Writ Petition was 
dismissed - Two fold contentions raised by appellant- 1) that 
the findings of Inquiry Officer were vitiated inasmuch as the 
F 
Inquiry Officer took into consideration the evidence recorded 
in the ex-parte proceedings and 2) that the Chief Judge was 
an appellate authority and, therefore, he could not have 
imposed the order of punishment as that resulted in depriving 
·the appellant of his valuable right of departmental appeal 
G 
against the order of punishment - Held: The first contention 
is mis-placed - The Inquiry Officer did not base his findings 
· on the evidence recorded ex-parte but referred to that only for 
, purposes of appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses 
1081 
H 
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A examined by the department in de novo inquiry wherein the· 
appellant fully participated - The findings were based on 
. evidence recorded subsequently in presence of the appellant 
- The consideration of the evidence recorded in the course 
of the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the 
B appellant and the findings recorded by him did not suffer from 
any legal infirmity justifying any interference by Supreme 
Court - As regards the other contention, ordinarily in a case 
of infliction of punishment by the higher authority acting as a 
disciplinary authority, if delinquent is denied his right of 
c departmental appeal or right of review, such order of 
punishment may be rendered bad in law but much would 
depend on the relevant rules - In the instant case, the Chief 
Judge was the appointing authority of the appellant - In that 
event, the argument of the appellant that the appellate 
0 authority inflicted punishment upon him is devoid of any 
substance - The challenge to the competence of the Chief 
Judge in passing the order of punishment was rightly rejected 
by the High Court - By virtue of the second proviso in the 
Notification dated November 17, 1982, the appellant's right 
of departmental appeal was not taken away and he could have 
E challenged that order in the departmental appeal to the higher 
authority - The appellant did not avail of that opportunity and 
instead challenged the order in a Writ Petition before the High 
Court - The appellant's right of appeal not affected by the 
order passed by the Chief Judge. 
F 
G 
H 
Surjit Ghose v. Chairman & Managing Director, United 
Commercial Bank and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 474 and 
Electronics Corporation of India v. G. Muralidhar (2001) 10 
sec 43 - distinguished. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1995) 2 sec 474 
(2001) 10 sec 43 
distinguished 
distinguished 
Para 5 
Para 5 
S. LOGANATHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
1083 . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
A 
9829 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.06.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 3141 of 2002. 
V. Kanagaraj. Promila, S. Thananjayan for the Appellant. 
B 
R. Venkataramani, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, 
Praburamasubramanian for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
c 
-- ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
- -
2. The appellant, who was working as a Junior Clerk in the 
D 
Subordinate Court at Yanam (Pondicherry}, was dismissed 
from the service on conciusion of disciplinary proceedings by 
the Chief Judge, Pondicherry (for short "Chief Judgej vide order 
dated November 

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