LexU.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus KAMAL SWAROOP TONDON
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 887 .~··"i U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. A II. KAMAL SWAROOP TONDON (C.A. No. 513 of 2008) JANUARY 18, 2008 B [C.K. THAKKER AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] ~· Service Law: Disciplinary inquiry - Minor penalty - Financial loss suffered by employer allegedly due to negligence of employee c - Departmental proceedings - Writ petition, during pendency of which, employer passed orders for recovery of loss from refiral benefits payable to employee - High Court held that order commencing disciplinaryinquiry against employee was illegal as he had retired on the date of order and hence, D consequential orders passed for recovery were also liable to be quashed - On appeal, held: Show cause notice as to disciplinary inquiry was issued to employee when he was very much in service -As explanation by employee was not found satisfactory, a regular show cause notice was issued and served E upon employee before he retired - High Court was wrong in holding that proceedings were initiated after the employee retired and there was no power, authority or jurisdiction with the employer to take any action f3gainst him and in setting 1 aside the recovery orders passed against him - Matter remitted F to High Court - U.P State Sugar Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1988 - rr.93 & 109. Negligence of employee - Loss caused to employer - Meanwhile employee retiring - Held: Such loss could be recovered from employee's retiral benefits. G 'r Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 226 - Jurisdiction under - Held: Is equitable and discretionary. App·e11ant-Corporation suffered financial loss allegedly due to negligence of Respondent-employee. 887 H 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A Departmental proceedings were initiated against the Respondent. Respondent filed writ petition challenging the same. During pendency of the petition, orders were passed for recovery of loss suffered by Appellant from retiral benefits payable to Respondent. Respondent made B amendment in the writ petition and challenged the said recovery orders as well. High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the order commencing disciplinary inquiry against the Respondent was illegal as he had retired on the date of order and hence, the consequential C orders passed for recovery were also liable to be quashed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Show cause notice was issued to Respondent-employee on January 13, 2000 when he was D very much in service. Respondent submitted his explanation on January 15, 2000 which was not found to be satisfactory. A regular show cause notice as to departmental enquiry was therefore issued by Appellant- Corporation on January 31, 2000 and was served upon E the respondent-employee on the same day, which was also the last day of his service. The notice was also sent by registered post which was received by the employee on February 11, 2000. It is clear from the documents that · show cause notice was replied to. Therefore, it could not F be said that the proceedings had been initiated against the respondent-employee after he retired from service. [Para 1 O] [895-B-D] 2.1. No rigid, inflexible or invariable test can be •applied as to when the proceedings should be allowed to G be continued and when they should be ordered to be dropped. If on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court is satisfied that there was gross, inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating departmental proceedings and continuation of such proceedings would H seriously prejudice the employee and would result in r U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 889 v. KAMAL SWAROOP TONDON _,_, miscarriage of justice, it may quash them. However, it is A an exception to the general rule that once the proceedings are initiated, they must be taken to the logical end. It, therefore, cannot be laid down as a proposition of law or a rule of universal application that if there is delay in initiation of proceedings for a particular period, they s must necessarily be quashed. [Para 27] [901-A-D] 2.2. In the present case, the High Court has not ,. quashed the proceedings on the ground that there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Corporation in initiating such proceedings against the C respondent. According to the High Court, since the respondent retired on January 31, 2000, the proceedings could not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.