LexUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus MAHAVEER C. SINGHVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 9 S.C.R. 246 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAHAVEER C. SINGHVI (SLP (C) No. 27702 of 2008) JULY 29, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.M. PANCHAL AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Service Law: Discharge of an IFS probationer during the period of probation - Challenged - HELD: The order had been issued on account of the alleged misconduct of the probationer which was the very basis of the order, although nothing was found 0 against him on the basis of the inquiries conducted - The order was passed as a punitive measure without giving the probationer any opportunity of defending himself and, as such, was rightly set aside by the High Court- Natural justice. The respondent, who was appointed to the Indian E Foreign Service on 21.9.1999, was, by order dated 13.6.2002, discharged from the service as IFS Probationer ~ during the period of probation. He challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was submitted that the order was passed because the F respondent protested against the manner in which he had been deprived of his choice of German as his language allotment by deliberately altering the rules of allotment of languages for the year 1999 to benefit a certain candidate. The Tribunal dismissed the application. G The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court emphasizing that his discharge from service was not a discharge simpliciter, but was the result of an inquiry conducted behind his back on a complaint of one 'NC' regarding threat and abusive and sexually explicit H 246 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. MAHAVEER C. 247 SINGHVI remarks alleged to have been made by him to her A daughter, though nothing adverse could be found against him. The High Court quashed the order of discharge and directed reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved, the Union of India and others filed the petition for special leave to B appeal. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. It has been repeatedly expressed by this Court from Purshotam Lal Dhingra* onwards that if the C inquiries on the allegations made against an employee formed the foundation of the order of discharge, without giving the employee concerned an opportunity to defend himself, such an order of discharge would be bad and liable to be quashed. [para 29] [264-A-B] D *Purshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India 1958 SCR 828; and Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. UP. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Anr. 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 558 = (1999) 2 sec 21, relied on. Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another 1975 (1) SCR 814=AIR 1974 SC 2192 = 1974 (2) sec 831, referred to. E F 1.2. In the instant case, although, nothing was found against the respondent on the basis of the inquiries conducted on the complaint made by 'NC', the same was taken into consideration which is reflected from the observation made by the Joint Secretary (CNV) that he had no doubt that the respondent would blacken the G country's name. There is absolutely no material on record to support such an observation made by a responsible official in the Ministry, which clearly discloses the prejudice of the authorities concerned against the respondent. What is, however, most damning is that a H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 9 S.C.R. A decision was ultimately taken by the Director, Vigilance Division to terminate the services of the respondent, stating that the proposal had the approval of the Minister of External Affairs. [Para 31] [264-E-H; 265-A-E] 8 Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors. 1999 (1) SCR 532= (1999) 3 SCC 60, held inapplicable. 1.3. The petitioners have not been able to satisfactorily explain why the rules/norms for allotment of C languages were departed from only for the year 1999, so that the respondent was denied his right of option for German. The mode of allotment was amended for the 1999 Batch in such a calculated fashion that the officer, who was at Serial No.7, was given the choice of German D over and above the respondent who was graded at two stages above her. [Para 29] [263-F-H] 1.4. Not only is it clear from the materials on record, but even in their pleadings the petitioners have E themselves admitted that the order of 13th June, 2002, had been issued on account of the respondent's misconduct and that misconduct was the very basis of the said order. That being so, hav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.