STATE OF U.P. versus HARENDRA ARORA AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 02-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. 
A 
.. 
v. 
HARENDRA ARORA AND ANR. 
MAY 2, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law 
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930-Rule 
55A-Dismissal of employee from service-Non-furnishing of enquiry report c 
as per the Rules-Effect of-Order of dismissal-Validity of-Article 311 (2)-
Constitution of India. 
Respondent, an Executive Engineer, was served with a charge sheet 
incorporating various irregularities committed by him during his service. D 
Mter enquiry, wherein the charges were proved, dismissal of the respondent 
was recommended. The State Government after issuing a notice, dismissed 
~' 
the respondent from service. The respondent filed a petition before State 
,> 
Public Services Tribunal against the order of dismissal. The Tribunal quashed 
the order of dismissal on the ground that the respondent was not served with 
a copy of the enquiry report. On appeal by the State, High Court dismissed E 
the appeal upholding the order of the Tribunal. 
ht appeal to this Court, the State Government contended that the order 
of dismissal cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-furnishing of enquiry 
report unless it is shown that the respondent was prejudiced thereby. 
F 
The respondent contended that as per Rule 55A of the Civil Services 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, and enquiry report has to 
be furnished to the respondent, but was not furnished. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD : Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
... 
Appeal) Rules, 1930 embodies the principles of reasonable opportunity and 
natural justice. This provision for furnishing a copy of the enquiry report 
is a procedural one and of a mandatory character, but even then a delinquent H 
375 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A has to show that he has been prejudiced by its non-observance. After 
submission of enquiry report, the State Government sent a show cause notice 
to the delinquent pursuant to which he had shown cause and the disciplinary 
authority after considering the same, passed the order of dismissal. It is not 
the stand of the respondent that in absence of the enquiry report the could 
B not submit an effective show cause before the order of dismissal was passed. 
Neither from the order passed by the Tribunal nor the High Court, it would 
appear that the respondent had raised this point there that he could not file 
an effective show the absence of enquiry report nor it has been stated that 
in the show cause reply in cause reply it was complained that the delinquent 
had not been served with a copy of the enquiry report. From these facts, it 
C is not possible to hold that the respondent has been prejudiced by non-
furnishing of enquiry report. (386-G-H; 390-D; F-H] 
D 
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and 
Ors., [1993) 4 SCC 727 CB and Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan 
Khan, (1991) 1 sec 588, relied on. 
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 CB; Charan Lal 
Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 CB; Kai/ash Chander Asthana 
v. State of U.P., [1988) 3 SCC 600; Jankinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa, 
(1969) 3 SCC 392; K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and Ors., [1984) 1 
E SCC 43; Sunil Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (1980) 3 
SCC 304; State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 
and Krishan Lal v. State of J & K, (1994) 4 SCC 422, referred to. 
Russel v. Duke of Norfolk and Ors., (1949) 1 All E.R. 109; Ridge v. 
Baldwin and Ors., (1964) Appeal Cases 40; R. v. Secretary. of State for 
F Transport, ex parte Gwent County Council, (1987) 1 All E.R. 161 and Davis 
v. Carew-Pole and Ors., (1956) 1 Weekly Law Reports 833, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5241 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13 .1.19.98 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Writ Petition No. 5225 of 1990. 
Y.P. Singh and P.N. Puri for the Appellant. 
H 
D.S. Chaube, B.N. Mishra and S.K. Misra for the Respondents. 
-·
STATE v. HARENDRA ARORA [B.N. AGRAWAL, J.] 
377 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B.N. AGRAWAL, J. Judgment passed by a Division Bench of the 
Allahabad High Court in a writ application dismissing the same has been 
challenged in this appeal whereby order passed by Uttar Pradesh Public 
Services Tribunal quashing order of dismissal of the respondent no. 1 from 
service has been upheld. 
B 
Respondent No. 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.