STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus M.C. SAXENA

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1090 · Decided: 24-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
M.C. SAXENA 
FEBRUARY 24, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Rajasthan Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1958 ; Rule 33. 
C 
Departmental enquiry-Enquiry Report-Delinquent employee 
exonerated-However, Disciplinary Authority gave reasons disagreeing with 
the Enquiry Report and awarded punishment-Employee not given opportunity 
of hearing by the Disciplinary Authority-Validity of-Held : The only 
requirement is to record reasons for disagreement--There is no requirement 
of affording further opportunity of hearing of the delinquent employee-The 
D court cannot interfere unless the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are 
not reasonable-Hence, punishment awarded is valid. 
Punishment-Lapse of-From date of punishment or date of 
deliquency-Departmental Circular-Provided punishment would lapse after 
seven years from the date of punishment and not from the date of delinquency-
E Validity of-Held : Departmental Circular, valid. 
The respondent, an Engineer with the appellant-State Government, was 
charged with using sub-standard materials in construction work. The· Enquiry 
Officer exonerated the respondent on the ground that the samples, which 
were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), were not in accordance 
F with the prescribed procedure and therefore, the report of the FSL could not 
relied upon. The disciplinary authority gave reasons for his disagreement 
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded punishment to the 
respondent 
The Departmental Promotion Committee found the respondent fit for · 
promotion for the year 82-83 and the respondent was accordingly promoted. 
G However, the respondent filed a writ peition before the High Court contending 
that the punishment lapsed after a period of seven years from the date of 
deliquency and, therefore, the respondent should have been considered for 
promotion for the years 1980. The High Court allowed the petition. Hence 
this appeal. 
H 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that in view of the Depart-
1090 
t 
r 
STA TE v. M.C. SAXENA 
1091 
mental Circular the period of seven years could only be counted from the A 
date of the order of punishment and the date of delinquency was immaterial. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that since the Disciplinary 
Authority did not give the respondent an opportunity of hearing before 
awarding the 1mnishment it was liable to be set aside. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The disci11linary authority can disagree with the findings 
arrived at by the enquiry officer and act upon his own conclusion, but the 
only requirement is that the said disciplinary authority must record reasons 
for his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. H the C 
disciplinary authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the 
enquiry officer then the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless 
it comes to the conclustion that no reasonable man can come to the said 
finding. The disciplinary authority was well within his powers to award 
punishment on the findings arrived at by him. (1095-D-E) 
D 
1.2. A set of charges having been framed and the delinquent 
government servant having filed his show cause to the set of charges, the 
regular enquiry having been held and the enquiry officer having recorded 
his findings and thereafter the disciplinary authority having disagreed with 
the finding by recording the reasons therefor and ultimately awarding E 
punishment there is no procedural irregularity therein nor can it be said 
that there has been any violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, 
there is no requirement of affording the respondent a further opportunity of 
hearing. [1095-G-H; 1096-A) 
2. The High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the F 
punishment would Japes after a period of seven years from the date of 
delinquency and not from the date of punishment. [1094-H) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDiCTION: Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 
1993 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1. 93 of the Rajasthan High Court 
in D.B.C. P. No. 3323of1989. 
Aruneshwar Gupta, A.K. Bhati and Surya Kant for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A 
G. B. PATTANAIK, J. These two appeals, one by the state ofRajasthan 
and the other by the concerned employee arise out of the same judgment and 
as such are being disposed of by this c

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