SURENDER KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 21-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 312 
A 
SURENDER KUMAR 
v. 
II_ 
_.... 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
--
(Civil Appeal No. 3811 of 2005) 
B 
OCTOBER 21, 2009 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Service Law: Compulsory retirement - Delinquent officer, 
,, 
).'.' 
Assistant Supervisor in Military Farm - Material (Soda-bi-
c carbonate) entrusted to him for feeding the animals -
Delinquent officer instead of feeding the material to the 
animals, stored it in a room exclusively in his possession -
. 
Three animals died as they were not fed with the said material 
- Order of compulsory retirement - Held: The delinquent 
D officer failed to give explanation as to why huge quootity of. 
320 Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate was kept in the premises which 
~ 
was exclusively in his possession - He was thus guilty of 
misappropriating the material and jeopardizing the health of 
animals - Punishment of compulsory retirement was not 
E harsh considering the serious misconduct. 
Appellant was working as an Assistant Supervisor in 
Military Farm. He was served with chargesheet wherein 
it was alleged that he had misappropriated about 320 Kg: 
-t ~ 
of Soda-bi-carbonate; that he had failed to feed the 
' 
F animals in his charge with the said Soda-bi-carbonate as 
a result of which he jeopardized the health of the animals 
and that he willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of his 
superior officer. After departmental inquiry, he was 
awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement. 
-
G .P.ppellate Authority, CAT and High Court upheld the order 
of compulsory retirement. Hence the present appeal. 
).-
.. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
312 
SURENDER KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 313 
HELD: 1. It is true that there is a factual error in the A 
' 
High Court's judgment inasmuch as the material was not 
.-" 
found in the quarter of appellant but in the place of which 
.... 
he alone was in-charge. It is clear from the record that the 
concerned officer took this material on day-to-day basis 
to feed to the animals in the military farm and instead of B 
feeding the material to the animals, he stored it in the UPI 
room which was exclusively in his possession and under 
.. , 
his lock and key. This would certain!¥ amount to 
~ 
misappropriation as the said material was meant for the 
consumption of the animals on the military farm on day- c 
today basis and the animals were npt
1 given the said 
) 
material for their consumption. There could be no 
explanation on the part of the delinquent officer why the 
huge quantity of 320 Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate was kept 
~ 
in the premises which was exclusively in his possession. D 
[Para 2] [315-B-E] 
-
1.2. Soda-bi-carbonate was meant for the animals 
and those animals suffered because of the fact that the 
Soda-bi-carbonate was not fed to them and 3 animals are 
reported to have died. Hence the charge No. 2 also stood E 
fully proved. There can be no dispute about third charge 
also which was rightly held established. If that is so, the 
... t 
punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be termed 
r 
as "harsh" considering the serious misconduct. The 
--
departmental inquiry was conducted keeping in view the F 
norms of the natural justice and the fair play. There is 
nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was 
refused any opportunity to represent himself effectively 
before the Inquiry Officer or the Appellate Authority. In fact 
the only scope in such cases is to examine the manner G 
-( 
in which the departmental enquiry is conducted. [Para 3] 
_, 
[315-F-H;316-A-B] 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3811 of 2005. 
H 
.... 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment §t. Order dated 3.3.2004 of the High 
B 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7570 of 
2003. 
P.N. Misra, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Appellant. 
. 
Indira Jaisingh, ASG, Naresh Kaushik, Ashok K. 
Srivastava, Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of 
an employee who was working as Assistant Supervisor, Military 
Farm. He was served with chargesheet wherein it was alleged 
firstly that he had misappropriated about 320 Kg. of Soda-bi-
carbonate; secondly, that he had failed to feed the animals in 
0 his charge with the said Soda-bi-carbonate as a result of which 
he had jeopardi;zed the health of the animals and thirdly, that 
he had willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.