THE RT. REV. B.P. SUGANDHAR versus SAT. D. DOROTHY DAYASHEELA EBENESER

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 12-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE RT. REV. B.P. SUGANDHAR 
A 
v. 
SAT. D. DOROTHY DAYASHEELA EBENESER 
APRIL 12, 1986 
\S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.j 
B 
Constitwion of India, 1950 : A1tic/e 226. 
Depmt1r.ental enquiry--Constitutio11 of Enqui1y Commissio1r-Chal-
lenged by suspended employee-Mea11whi/e decision taken to hold regular C 
enquiry and to appoint Enquily Office1-Held : It was fittile to quash con-
stitutio11 of Enquily Commission. 
Se1Vice Law : 
Suspension of employee pending departmental enquiiy into financial D 
irregularities-High Cowt directed nianagement to restore employee to pre-
vious post-Held : In the circunzstances of the case, viz ad1ninistrative & 
financial irregulalities, and disobedience the pwt of or employee, High Cowt's 
direction not proper-Management directed to go on paying full salwy till 
enquiry was over. 
The appellant, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Techni-
cal Institute, appointed an Enquiry Commission to enquire into the acts 
of commissions and omissions of the respondent- Principal. She was also 
suspended. A copy of the terms of reference of the Enquiry Commission 
E 
was served on the respondent. After the Enquiry Commission found that F 
there was sufficient material in support of the charges, the appeIIant 
issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why she should not be 
dismissed from service. Thereupon, she filed a writ petition in the High 
Court challenging her suspension and the appointment of the Enquiry 
Commission. The appeIIant state that the Enquiry Commission was only G 
a fact-finding body and that an Enquiry Officer would be appointed to bold 
an enquiry and that a detailed charge-sheet would be issued on the report 
of the Enquiry Commission. In view of this statement a Single Judge of the 
High Court dismissed the petition as premature. Her writ appeal was 
ailowed by a Division Bench on the ground that the ternis of reference 
made to the Enquiry Commission were vague and general and that there H 
247 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996[ SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
was 'element of ma/a fides' on the part of the appellant in initiating the 
said proceedings and that the order of suspension having come to an end 
the respondent was entitled to be restored as Principal. Aggrieved by that 
order the appellant had filed this appeal. 
B 
c 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court should not have 
quashed the preliminary enquiry particularly when the appellant had 
made it clear, by the time the Division Bench disposed of the appeal, that 
the formal enquiry was yet to be held. The purpose of constituting the 
Commission of Enquiry was to hold only a preliminary enquiry to ascer-
tain whether there was some truth in the complaints made against the 
respondent and whether there was enough material on the basis of which 
misconduct of respondent could be proved. The Division Bench failed to 
appreciate that at that stage no formal charge was required to be framed 
D nor even participation by the respondent was necessary. The Executive 
Committee had only broadly indicated to the Commission of Enquiry the 
nature and scope of enquiry which they had to make and a copy of the 
terms of reference was served upon the respondent only enable her to put 
forward her explanation so that also could be considered along with the 
report of the Commission of Enquiry before taking a decision as to whether 
E a full-fledged regular enquiry was required to be made against her. There 
was hardly any role for the court to play at that stage. [251-B-D] 
1.2. The Single Judge had rightly dismissed that writ petition as 
premature and it was not proper for the Division Bench to set aside that 
p 
order and quash the constitution of the Commission of Enquiry and 
holding of a preliminary enquiry. It should have been appreciated that it 
was futile to pass such an order as the Executive Committee had already 
taken a decision by the fine to hold a regular full-fledged enquiry and 
appointed an Enquiry Ollicer for that purpose. [251-E-F] 
G 
2. The charges levelled against the respondent are quite serious. 
They pertain not only to administrative irregularities but also to financial 
irregularities and disobedience. In snch circnmstances, the direction of the 
High Court for restoration of the respondent on the post of Principal is 
set aside. The appellant is directed to 110 on paying the full salary and 
H allowances to her till the enquiry is over. (252-D-E] 

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