SHEKHAR GHOSH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 01-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHEKHAR GHOSH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
NOVEMBER I, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Reversion-Khalasi promoted as Junior Clerk-On complaint of some 
employees, reverted to the post of [(halasi on the ground that there was 
mistake in the service record-Dismissal of 0.A. by Tribunal upheld by High 
Court-Justification of-Held, not justified as charges were not framed nor 
enquiry/disciplinary proceedings was held-Witness were also not examined-
&en no steps taken by authorities to rectify the so called mistake-No post 
D decisional hearing also afforded-These aspects were not considered by the 
Tribunal and High Court-Jn view of violation of principles of natural 
justice, impugned judgement set aside. 
Administrative law: 
E 
Principle of natural justice-Compliance of-Held, varies from case to 
case. 
Appellant was appointed as Khalasi at Kota Railway workshop. He was 
promoted as a Junior Clerk. He was ~ransferred in the same capacity to 
Railway Electrification Project. While working there, he was promoted as a 
F senior clerk. On completion of the project, he was repatriated to his original 
office. Although he was posted in the office of the Kota Railway Station of 
Western Railway Administration, he was kept in the said workshop. A request 
for change of his lien was agreed to by the competent authority, and his request 
for absorption on the said post was also accepte<!. On complaint of some of the 
G employees, he was repatriated to the worluhop on the post of Khalasi. Appellant 
filed OA before Tribunal, which was dismissed. His writ petition before High 
Court was also dismissed. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that an entry had been made 
in his sert-ice record in regard to regularization of his services, and that he 
274 
.. 
SHEKHAR GHOSH v. U.0.1. 
275 
is holding the post of Junior Clerk in substantive capacity. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Appellant had asked for production of his service records 
which was declined. Respondents, therefore, indisputably proceeded on the 
basis that a mistake occurred in making an entry in the service book of the B 
appellant. The mistake committed admittedly, thus, was on the part of the 
respondents. (279-G) 
1.2. The mistake was said to have been detected on the basis of the 
complaint made by four employees. Serious allegations had been made against 
the appellant therein. If the allegations made therein were correct; then not C 
only the appellant but also other officers of the department, whom he had 
allegedly paid bribe for forging the documents, were guilty of misconduct 
[279-H; 280-A) 
-2. Appellant had never been supplied with a copy of the said complaint. 
No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. No charge was framed, D 
nor any witness was examined. No Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct 
an enquiry into the allegations on the charges of misconduct framed against 
the appellant in that behalf. The Senior Divisional Officer without holding an 
enquiry arrived at a finding that his original post was Khalasi in Wagon Repair 
Shop, Kota and his lien had been cancelled, and directed repatriation. Despite 
arriving at such a finding, a post-decisional hearing was sought to be afforded E 
to the appellant A post decisional hearing was not called for as the disciplinary 
authority had already made up its mind before giving an opportunity of hearing. 
Such a post-decisional hearing in a case of this nature is not contemplated in 
law. The result of such hearing was a foregone conclusion. [280-B-D I 
K.I. Shephardv. Union of India, AIR (1988) SC 686 and V.C. Banaras F 
Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant, (2006) 6 SCALE 66, relied on. 
P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India & Ors., (2006) 5 SCALE 54, referred 
to. 
3. It is not disputed that even when a mistake is sought to be rectified, G 
if by reason thereof, an employee has to suffer civil consequences ordinarily 
the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. 
Ram Ujarey v. Union of India, [1999] 1 SCC 685, relied on. 
l{ 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
4.1. Respondents in their counter-affidavits filed before the Tribunal and 
theHigh Court,. did not raise any plea of rectification of any mistake. It was 
also not stated in the show cause notice issued to the appellant Only a plea of 
mistake was taken for the first time before the Tribunal, but no plea was taken 
that it was 

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