UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHARVAN KUMAR

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 06-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
SHARVAN KUMAR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1942 of 2014)
JULY 06, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Service Law – High Court held that the remitted proceedings
in the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent were rendered
nullity, for having not been concluded within the time limit fixed by
the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 03.09.2010 – Correctness of
– Held: Fixing of the period of two months by the Tribunal in this
case had only been to ensure expeditious proceedings because the
matter was being restored for reconsideration in the year 2010,
though the disciplinary proceedings related with the incident dated
09.01.2005 – However, the said period of two months did not acquire
any status akin to that of a statutory mandate that the disciplinary
proceedings would have automatically come to an end with its expiry
– Proceedings in question neither abated nor could have been
considered nullity only because of passage of the expected time
period stated in the order of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2010 – There
was no reason or justification for the High Court to interfere with
the just and proper order passed by the Tribunal on 21.06.2013
which inter alia held that the proceedings pursuant to the order dated
03.09.2010 would have abated only if it was so directed in specific
terms and not otherwise – Impugned order set aside and the order
dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Tribunal is restored.
Service Law – Conditional orders passed by Court/Tribunal
to do something within a particular period, without providing
consequence of default – Enlargement of such time – Permissibility
of – Discussed.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Neither the approach of the High Court nor its
conclusion could be endorsed. The propositions of the High Court,
treating the proceedings in question as having abated or having
been rendered nullity cannot be approved from any standpoint.
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 445
445
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
It appears that the High Court has taken the period of two months
for completion of the proceedings, as stated in the order of the
Tribunal dated 03.09.2010, to be an inflexible mandate as also of
fatal consequence in the manner that after its expiry, the
department could not have taken the disciplinary proceedings to
their logical conclusion. This approach of the High Court cannot
be supported even from a technical standpoint and obviously
stands at conflict with the substance of the matter. After the
respondent was awarded the penalty of removal from service by
the order dated 23.02.2006 in conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings, he challenged the same and the Appellate Authority,
by its order dated 23.08.2006, altered the penalty to that of
downgrading his pay. The Revisional Authority by its order dated
14.03.2007 held that the negligence on the part of the respondent
was established and found no reason to interfere. However, the
Tribunal, in the earlier round of litigation, while dealing with OA
No. 373 of 2007, chose not to examine the other material
questions involved in the matter but, disapproved the imposition
of penalty on the respondent for the reason that the person acting
as the Disciplinary Authority had been one of the members who
had earlier submitted the joint enquiry report. In this view of the
matter, the Tribunal quashed the orders passed against the
respondent but, being conscious of the fact that the disciplinary
proceedings were otherwise required to be taken to the logical
conclusion, issued directions to ensure that the matter be dealt
with by the Disciplinary Authority other than the person who had
been a member of the joint enquiry team and the proceedings be
taken up from the stage of consideration of representation of the
respondent against the report of the Enquiry Officer. While
concluding on the matter, the Tribunal also expected that such
afresh exercise be completed within two months of the receipt of
the order, after leaving all other contentions open. As noticed,
the appellants attempted to seek enlargement of time in view of
the fact that the exercise could not be completed within the said
period of two months but, this prayer for enlargement was declined
by the Tribunal not on its merits but, for a different reason that
the particulars like the time-frame laid down by the Railway Board
for taking the decision on the enquiry report was not stated before
it. The said order expe

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