UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DINANATH SHANTARAM KAREKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 30-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DINANATH SHANTARAM KAREKAR AND ORS. 
JULY 30, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Departmental Enquiry-Procedure-Charge-sheet and show-cause 
notice-Service of-By registered post and pub!ication in a newspaper- C 
Sufficiency of-Charge-sheet sent by registered post received back with postal 
endorsement "not found"-Show-cause notice published in newspaper-
Held : A single effort, in this case, is not sufficient-Further efforts to serve 
the charge-sheet should have been made-Newspaper not shown to be popular 
or having wide circulation-Hence, disciplinary proceedings vitiated for D 
want of service of charge-sheet and showe-casue notice-Further, service of 
charge-sheet is different from communication of termination order. 
Termination of service-Communication of-Order passed but kept in 
file-Held : Neither there is termination of service nor communication of 
order. 
E 
The original respondent (since deceased) was removed from service 
after regular departmental enquiry. The charge-sheet was issued to him by 
registered post but was returned with the postal endorsement "not found". A 
show-cause notice was published in the local newspaper. The Central 
Administrative Tribunal found the service of the charge sheet and the show-
cause notice on the respondent as insufficient and, therefore, set aside the 
order by which the respondent was removed from service. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. The postal endorsement "not found" indicates that the G 
charge sheet was not tendered to him even by the postal authorities. A 
document sent by registered post can be treated to have been served only 
when it is established that it was tendered to the addressee. Where the 
addressee was not available even to the postal authorities, and the registered 
cover was returned to the sender with the endorsement "not found", it cannot H 
933 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 3 S.C.R. 
A be legally treated to have been served. The appellant should have made 
further efforts to serve the charge sheet on the respondent. Single effort, in 
the circumstances of the case, cannot be treated as sufficient. That being so, 
the very initiation of the departmental proceedings was bad. It was ex-pa rte 
even from the stage of charge sheet which, at no stage, was served upon the 
B respondent. 1936-A-C] 
1.2. Show-cause notice also cannot be treated to have been served. 
Service of this notice was sought to be effected on the respondent by publication 
in a newspaper without making any earlier effort to serve him personally by 
tendering the show-cause notice either through the office peon or by registered 
C post There is nothing on record to indicate that the newspaper in which the 
show-cause notice was published was a popular newspaper, which was expected 
to be read by the public in general, or that it had wide circulation in the area 
or locality where the respondent lived. The show-cause notice cannot, therefore, 
in these circumstances, be held to have been served on the respondent. In any 
D case, since the very initiation of the disciplinary proceeding was bad for the 
reason that the charge sheet was not served. All subsequent steps and stages, 
including the issuance of the show-cause notice would be bad. [93(i-D-E) 
1.3. Where the services are terminated, the status of the delinquent, 
as a Government servant, comes to an end and nothing further remains to be 
E done in the matter. But if the order is passed and merely kept in the file, 
it would not be treated to be an order terminating the services nor shall the 
said order be deemed to have been communicated. [937-FI 
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR (1977) SC 629, held inapplicable. 
F 
State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, AIR (1970) SC 214; Bachhittar Singh 
v. State of Punab, (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 713; State of Punjab v. Amar Singh 
Harika, AIR (1966) SC 1313 and S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, 11964) 
4 SCR 733, referred to. 
2. Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by 
G issuing a charge sheet, its actual service is essential as the person to whom 
the charge sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to 
participate in the disciplinary proceedings. So also, when the show-cause 
notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action 
proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employ

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