..
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
DARSHAN SINGH
FEBRUARY 15, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law:
Misconduct-Removal from service-Bus conductor collected fares
from passengers but had not issued tickets-In the order of removal previous
punishments were indicated-Held : It does not mean that the previous
punishments imposed on him were taken into account-Couns below wrongly
proceeded on the assumption that the disciplinary authority took into con-
sideration the previous conduct without any charge being framed in that
behalf or that no opponunity was given in this behalf.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3776 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.93 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in RS.A. No. 2541of1992.
Sanjay Bansal and G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.
The following Order of Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
On January 11, 1996, since the respondent had not appeared, the
matter was heard ex-parte. However, the appellant was directed to produce
copy of the order dismissing the respondent from service. That order has
now been placed on record .• The respondent was removed from service by
the proceedings of the General Manager of the appellant ~m May 26, 1989.
The respondent filed the Suit No. 450/97 questioning it for a declaration
that the order of removal was illegal. The trial Court proceeded on the
finding that the order of removal is based upon the previous conduct of
the respondent which was ·not put in issue before he was removed from
service. Therefore, the order is vitiated by error of law. That was upheld
A
B
c
D
E
F
G·
by the appellate Court. The Second Appeal was dismissed summarily. Thus H
745
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1996] 2 S.C.R.
A this appeal is by special leave.
. The order of removal clearly indicates that· the charge was framed
on the basis that he committed misconduct in collecting fares from the
passengers but had not issued the tickets to them. Evidence was adduced
after giving reasonable opportunity and it was found that the defence of
B the respondent was not proved. As a consequence, it was held in para-
graph 5 that "in view of foregoing discussions, the charge of committing
fraud to the tune of Rs. 7.50 ps. against Shri Darshan Singh, C. is estab-
lished." In view of that finding, the respondent was removed from service.
While communicating the order, they have indicated the previous punish-
C ments he had to his credit. That does not mean that they have taken into
account those previous punishments imposed on him. The courts below,
therefore, have wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the disciplinary
authority had taken into consideration the previous conduct without any
charge being framed in that behalf or that no opportunity was given to the
D
· respondent in this behalf.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed. No
costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex