UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus NARENDER SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 899 · Decided: 29-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-1 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NARENDER SINGH 
JULY 29, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Dismissal of an employee on ground of illegal gratification-Appeal c 
dismissed by Appellate Authority-Reversed by Tribunal directing the 
authorities to reinstate the employee-Challenge to--Dismissed by High 
Court as infructuous-On appeal, Held: Merely because the order of 
reinstatement was implemented by the employer, that did not render petition 
infructuous-Hence the matter is remitted to High Court for disposal afresh 
on merits. 
D 
Words and Phrases: 
'Jnfructuous '-Meaning of 
Respondent-employee was proceeded against departmentally on the E 
charge of accepting illegal gratification from two Afghan nationals for 
clearing them through Customs without paying the Customs duty. He was 
ultimately dismissed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred by 
him was also rejected by the appellate authority. Challenging these orders, 
the respondent-employee filed Original Application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal. The Order was quashed by the Tribunal directing F 
the employer to reinstate the respondent-employee forthwith. The order was 
questioned by the employer by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India. The Petition was dismissed as infructuous by a Division 
Bench of the Delhi High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The order of the High Court is clearly indefensible. Merely 
because the order of reinstatement had been implemented by the appellant, 
that did not render the writ petition infructuous as has been observed by the 
"· 
899 
H 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A High Court. (901-F] 
.... -
Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar and Ors., (1973) 4 SCC 183, relied 
on. 
1.2. The expression 'infructuous' means ineffective, unproductive and 
B 
unfruitful. By implementing an order, the challenge to the validity of the order 
is neither wiped out nor rendered redundant. Hence, the matter is remitted to 
the High Court for disposal afresh on merits. It is clarified that no opinion 
has been expressed on the merits of the case. (902-B, CJ 
...-' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1813 of2003. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.2001 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 5869 of2001. 
A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General,-S. Wasim A. Qadri, Amit Anand 
Tiwari, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra with him for the Appellants. 
D 
Rajiv Dutta and Dr. Kailash Chand with him for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. The union of India and the Additional 
E 
Commissioner of Police (OPS), New Delhi have questioned correctness of the 
order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing writ 
petition filed by the present appellants as infructuous. 
The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and is as under: 
F 
Respondent (herein referred to as the 'employee') was proceeded against 
departmentally on the charge that on 27/28.2.1996 while posted in the vigilance 
cell at the Indira Gandhi International Airport he accepted illegal gratification 
for getting two Afghan nationals cleared through Customs without paying 
the Customs duty payable. He was ultimately dismissed by the disciplinary 
G 
authority by order dated 7. 8 .1997. The appeal preferred by him was also 
rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 20.11.1997. Challenging 
these orders the respondent-employee filed Original Application before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the 
'Tribunal'). By order dated 21.11.2000, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the 
order of dismissal dated 7 .8.1997 passed by the disciplinary authority as also 
H the order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the appellate authority. The respondent-
-'\ 
-
U.O.I. v. NARENDERSINGH [PASA YAT,J.] 
901 
employee was directed to be reinstated forthwith. The order passed by the A 
Tribunal was questioned by the present appellant by filing writ petition under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). The 
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by its order dated 5.12.200 I dismissed 
the writ petition as infructuous by observing as follows: 
"We are informed that respondent stands already reinstated in B 
service pursuant to Tribunal order dated 21.11.2000 passed in OA.95/ 
98 rendering this p

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