SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS versus A.CJ. BRITTO

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 19-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
A.CJ. BRITTO 
DECEMBER 19, 1996 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.J 
SERVICE LAW-Tamil Nadu subordinate Services Discipline and Ap-
peal) Rules, 1955---Rules 3(b) and ];-/)isciplinary proceeding-Whether con-
tinuous absence and not reporting for medical examination-" Good and C 
sufficient" reason for initiati11g discipli11ary proceeding, though not specified 
by a Rule to be misconduct-Held : Non-abeyance of legitimate orders of 
superior officers is a gross misconduct and 'good and sufficient' ground for 
initiating proceeding-Supply of documents in inquiry-Tribunal should see 
whether documents asked are relevant or not-Non-furnishing a copy of the 
enquiry report-Non-compliance prior to decision in Md. Ranjan Khan's case D 
not violative of law. 
• 
The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was dismissed from 
service on 3.11.1979 on being found guilty. in a departmental enquiry 
initiated against him. But on appeal tbe order of dismissal was set aside E 
and he was reinstated by tbe Inspector General of Police on tbe ground 
that there was violation of prescribed procedure in conducting tbe enquiry. 
The enquiry Officer was directed to proceed further with the enquiry from 
tbe stage it was found to be bad. The respondent joined duty on 12.11.1980 
and proceeded on casual leave from 13.11.11180 to 111.11.80. Instead of 
resuming duty after tbe expiry of tbe leave, tbe respondent kept on extend· F 
Ing his leave on health ground. 
As tbe respondent remained continuously absent on medical ground, 
the Superintendent of Police by his memos dated 22.4.1981 and 4.6.11181 
directed him to appear before tbe District Medical Officer for examination G 
by Medical Committee regarding his fitness to retum\to duty, but tbe 
respondent did not comply with tbe same. Considering ooh-compliance of 
tbe orders as misconduct, enquiry was initiated against him and on being 
found guilty he was dismissed from service on 24.5.1984. On appeal tbe 
Tribunal quashed and set aside the order of dismissal. Hence this appeal 
by the State Government. 
H 
441 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996] SUPP.10 S.~.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The view taken by the Tribunal that only the disciplinary 
authority can initiate a departmental proceeding against a Government 
servant is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. [445-F-G] 
•' 
Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan, [1996) 2 SCC 145, 
referred to. 
2. The view taken by the Tribunal regarding the effect of non-furnish-
ing of a copy of the enquiry report is also contrary to the law laid down by 
C this Court. In this case the order of dismissal was passed on 24.5.1984. 
Therefore, the Tribunal could not have nullified the order of dismissal in 
view of decisions in Md. Ramzan Khan and Karunakar. Md. Ramzan Khans 
case has prospective operation only. [445-H; 446-B] 
Union of India v. Md. Ramzan Khan, [1991) 1SCC588 and Managing 
D Director ECIL Hyderabad v. Karunakar, [1993) 4 SCC 611, relied on . 
• 
3.1. Proceeding was initiated against the respondent for his indis-
ciplined conduct in disobeying a lawful order passed by his superior officer 
who :was competent to pass such an order. There were good reasons for 
the authorities not to accept the explanation of the respondent for not 
E presenting himself before the Medical Board on 9.6.1981. Such an act of 
insubordination or disobedience of an order by a police officer has to be 
viewed seriously, as higher degree of discipline is expected of a member 
belonging to the police force. Therefore, it can not be said that there was 
no good and sufficient reason or a valid justification for initiating the 
F 
disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. [446-B-C; 446-E-G] 
3.2. Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Discipline and 
appeal) Rules empowers the competent authorities to impose upon the 
members of the service penalties specified therein "for good and sufficient 
reason". The Tribunal ought to have considered whether there was "good 
G and sufficient reason" for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the 
req>ondent, before holding that there was no justification to initiate dis-
ciplinary proceedings against the respon_dent The Tribunal was not jus-
tified in taking that view on the ground that such an act of delinquency 
/ 
has not been specified in the Rules'as an act of misconduct. Not obeying 
H a legitimate order of a superior by

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