STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus ABHAI KISHORE MASTA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 01-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
ABHAI KISHORE MASTA 
DECEMBER I, 1994 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW-Disciplinary Proceedings-Order of punishment 
made prior to the date of decision in Union of India v. Ramzan Khan, AIR 
(1991) SC 47 I-Non-Supply of enquiry report does not vitiate enquiry. 
C 
FUNDAMENTAL RULE 56-J-Compul:fory Retirement-Order made 
during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings-Whether necessarily 
penal-Held, No. 
While the respondent was working as an Executive Engineer he 
was suspended pending enquiry into certain charges. While the enquiry 
D 
was pending, the respondent was retired compulsorily under 
Fundamental Rule 56-J. While the writ petition filed against the order 
of compulsory retirement was pending, final orders were passed in 
disciplinary proceedings on 18.7.1990, imposing the punishment of 
reduction in rank, to be given effect to in case the order of compulsory 
retirement was set aside. 
E 
The High Court following an earlier decision of the same High 
Court in JN. Bajpai v. State of UP. and Ors., (1990) 8 LCD 149 quashed 
the order. of compulsory retirement on the ground that tlie order 
having been passed during the pendency of disciplinary proceec:Ungs 
must be deemed to be penal hi nature. The Qrder of punishment of 
F 
reduction in rank was quashed on the ground of non-supply of enquiry 
report, interalia following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union 
of India v. Ramzan Khan, AIR (1991) SC 471. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The order of the High Court quashing the order of 
punishment on the ground of non-supply of enquiry report was liable to 
be set aside on the ground that where the order of punishment was 
made earlier to the. date of the decision in Union of India v. Ramzan 
Khan, AIR (1991) SC 471, and non-supply of enquiry report did not 
vitiate the enquiry, as held· in Managing Director ECIL Hyd v. D. 
Karunakar, JT (1995] 6 SC 1. (226 G, 227 A] 
224 
STATE OF U.P. v. A. K. MASTA 
225 
1.2. So far as the order of compulsory retirement under A 
fundamental Rule 56-J was concerned, the principle enunciated by the 
Allahabad High Court in J.N. Bajpai v. State of U.P and Ori, (1990) 8 
LCD 149, and followed in the judgment under appeal was 
unsustainable in law. Neither as a matter of law oor as an invariable 
rule any and every order of compulsory retirement made under 
Fundamental Rule 56-J (or other provision corresponding thereto) B 
during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings can be held to be 
necessarily penal. It may be or it may not be, depending upon the 
verification of the relevant record or the material on which the order 
was based. [227 CJ 
1.3. In many cases, it may happen that the authority competent to C 
retire compulsorily under Rule 56-J and authority competent to impose 
the punishment in the disciplinary enquiry are different. It may also be 
that the charges communicated or the pendency of the disciplinary 
enquiry is only one of the several circumstances taken into 
consideration. In such cases it cannot be said that merely because the 
order of compulsory retirement is made after the charges are D 
communicated or during the pendency of disciplinary enquiry, it is 
penal in nature. Merely because the order of compulsory retirement is 
couched in innocuous language without making imputations against the 
government servant, the court need not conclude that it is not penalin 
nature. In appropriate cases the Court can lift the veil to find out 
whether, in truth, the order is penal in nature. [227 G, H, 228 A] 
E 
J.N. Bajpai v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1990) 8 LCD 149 (All): 
Overruled. 
State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan Nagar, [1969) 2 SCR 333 
(Constitution Bench); Ram Ekhal Sharma v. State of Bihar and Anr., 
[1990] 2 SCR 679; Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical F 
Officer and Anr., [1992) 1 SCR 836; Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, [1971) 1 
SCR 791, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8497/94. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9-4-93 of the High Court of G 
Allahabad in W.P. No. 1518/90. 
Gaurab Banerjee and R. B. Mishra for the Appellant. 
M.P. Jha, Anil K. Chopra and D. K. Garg for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
226 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the 
parties. 
The appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.