STATE OF U.P. versus SHEO SHANKER LAL SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · 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)

A 
STATE QF U.P. 
v. 
SHEO SHANKER LAL SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Misconduct--Disciplinary proceedings against a Public Relations 
C Officer-Charge-sheet-Authority found the employee guilty of misconduct 
and ordered his dismissal from service but awarded adequate compensation 
to him-Challenge to---High Court modified the order directing his retirement 
from service instead of his dismissal from the service-On appeal, held: 
Employee refused to hand over keys of the Almirah containing public 
D documents to the Authority-Recovery of documents from Almirah---Errant 
employee uses indecent language against authority--He refased to cross 
examine himself-Opposed appointment of a retired officer as an inquiry 
officer -Disciplinary authority vested with the power to impose punishment-
Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said 
that the order of the Authority in dismissing the errant employee suffered from 
E any infirmity. 
F 
G 
Administrative law: 
Principles of natural justice-Scope of-Held: Principles of natural 
justice could be excluded where doctrine of necessity applies. 
Quantum of punishment vis-a-vis Judicial Review-Held: In exercise of 
the power of judicial review, Courts would not normally interfere with the 
quantum of punishment. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of necessity and proportionality-Applicability of in the context 
of service jurisprudence. 
Appellant-employee was working as Private Secretary in the Office of the 
Lok Ayukta, Uttar Pradesh. When the authority visited the office on a routine 
H 
M6 
.. • 
-
~-
STATE OF U.P. v. SHEO SHANKER LAL SR IV AST AVA 
657 
. ,. 
- check for ascertaining pendency and asked the appellant to hand over the key of A 
the Almirah wherein important public documents were kept, he refused to hand 
over the key and also used indecent language. The Almirah was opened and 
number of receipts pending for disposal were recovered therefrom. In the 
departmental enquiry, though the appellant wanted to engage a lawyer, but the 
authorities declined the request on the ground that the charges levelled against B 
him were simple in nature. The authority initiated disciplinary proceeding against 
him and found him guilty of mis-conduct and directed his dismissal from service. 
y 
On appea~ High Court modified the order by converting dismissal of the appellant 
to retirement from service. Hence the present appeal and the cross appeal. 
The employee contended that since the Lok Ayukta/the authority himself c 
was a witness to the occurrence, he could not have taken over the disciplinary 
proceeding himself; that it was obligatory on the part of the Lok Ayukta to get 
the departmental proceedings conducted by some other officer; and that it would 
be evident from the records of the case that the Lok Ayukta made up his mind to 
punch him right from the beginning and in that view of the matter the order of 
punishment passed by him is not sustainable . 
D 
. .,_ . 
" 
Allowing the appeal filed by the State, and existing that of the employee, 
the Court 
HELD: I.I. Since, the Lok Ayukta is the disciplinary authority, the power 
to impose punishment on the errant employee vested only in him. When the Lok E 
Ayukta appointed a retired Director of Defence Estate as an inquiry officer, an 
objection thereto was taken by the employee himself stating that no person from 
outside should be appointed as the Inquiry Officer. In such a situation, the Lok 
Ayukta had no other option but to take upon himself the burden of holding the 
departmental proceedings. The employee, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise F 
_., 
any contention that the disciplinary proceeding should have been conducted by 
1 
some other officer, since he waived his right. (664-C-DJ 
ManakLal v. Dr. Prem Chand, (1957) SCR 575, referred to. 
1.2. It is true that the principle of natural justice is based on two pillars : G 
(i) nobody shall be condemned without hearing; and (ii) nobody shall be a judge in 
... ·-.: 
his own cause. It is, however, well known that the principles of natural justice 
., 
can be excluded by a statute. It can also be waived. In a case where doctrine of 
necessity is applicable compliance of the principles of natural justice would be 
excluded. (664-E-F) 
H 
I
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 2 S. C.R. 
A 
'MP. State Police Establishment v. State of MP. and Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 
f 
788, followed. 
Doct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.