SHRI ANANT R. KULKARNI versus Y.P. EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 1124 · Decided: 26-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 1124 
SHRI ANANT R. KULKARNI 
v. 
Y.P. EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3935 of 2013) 
APRIL 26, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Punishment 
C imposed upon delinquent employee set aside by the Court/ 
Tribunal as the enquiry stood vitiated for technical reasons -
Entitlement of employer to hold enquiry afresh from the point 
it stood vitiated - Held: Once the Court set asides an order 
of punishment on the ground, that the enquiry was not properly 
D conducted, the Court should not severely preclude the 
employer from holding the enquiry in accordance with law -
It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, 
to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and 
to conclude the same in accordance with law - However, 
E resorting to such a course depends upon the gravity of 
delinquency involved. 
Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Enquiry at belated 
stage - If can be quashed on the ground of delay - Held: The 
court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental 
F enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in 
initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de 
hors the limitation of judicial review - The essence of the 
matter is that the court must take into consideration all 
relevant facts, and balance and weigh the same, so as to 
G determine, if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest 
administration, that the said proceedings are allowed to be 
terminated, only on the ground of a delay in their conclusion. 
Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Enquiry on vague 
H 
1124 
SHRI ANANT R. KULKARNI v. Y.P. EDUCATION 
1125 
SOCIETY 
and unspecified charges - Permissibility - Held: Nowhere 
A 
should a delinquent be served a chargesheet, without 
providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of 
the charge against him - When statement of a/legations are 
not served with the chargesheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, 
as having been conducted in violation of the principles of 
B 
natural justice - There must be fair-play in action, particularly 
in respect of an order involving adverse or penal 
consequences. 
Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Enquiry against 
retired employee - Circumstances when such enquiry can be C 
conducted - Held: The relevant rules governing the service 
conditions of an employee are the determining factors as to 
whether and in what manner the domestic enquiry can be held 
against an employee who stood retired after reaching the age 
of superannuation - General/y, if the enquiry has been 
D 
initiated while the delinquent employee was in service, it would 
continue even after his retirement, but nature of punishment 
would change -
The punishment of dismissal/removal from 
service would not be imposed. 
Service Law - Departmental enquiry - For misconduct 
-
Termination of appelfant-employee -
Chalfenge to -
Meanwhile, appellant stood retired upon reaching the age of 
superannuation - Tribunal held that none of the charges 
levelled against the appelfant stood proved, and that the 
enquiry had not been conducted according to the 1981 Rules 
- Termination order accordingly quashed - Writ Petition -
Single Judge of High Court upheld the judgment of Tribunal, 
and found the enquiry to be entirely defective and thus, illegal 
- Division Bench too, upheld the judgment of the Single 
Judge, as well as that of the Tribunal, but simultaneously also 
held, that the respondents were at liberty to proceed with the 
enquiry afresh, as regards the said charges - On appeal, held: 
Division Bench committed error by giving liberty to the 
respondents to hold a fresh enquiry - Charges /eve/led 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A against the appellant were entirely vague, irrelevant and 
unspecific - Question of holding any fresh enquiry on such 
vague charges, therefore, unwarranted and uncalled for -
Procedure prescribed under rr.36, 37 and 57 of the 1981 
Rules were violated - Moreover, appellant had already retired 
B - No rule brought to notice that may confer any statutory 
power on the respondent-management to hold fresh enquiry 
after retirement of an employee - In absence of any such 
authority, the Division Bench erred in creating a post-
retirement forum that may not be permissible under law -
C Further, departmental enquiry can be quashed on the ground 
of delay provided the ch

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