LexUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus NAMAN SINGH SEKHAWAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 137 ·- UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS A ... v. NAMAN SINGH SEKHAWAT (Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2007) MARCH 14, 2008 B '~ (S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) Service Law: Misconduct - Sub-Inspector working in Intelligence c Bureau allegedly indulging in smuggling activities - Initiation of departmental proceedings - Criminal proceedings also initiated against him for committing offences punishable u/ ss. 409, 120B I. P. C., s. 13(2) of the Foreigners Act and s. 27 of the Arms Act, resulting in acquittal of accused/delinquent - Departmental authorities dropping charges against him as not D .... proved - Initiation of another departmental proceeding against ~ him on the same ground after lapse of 9 years - Dismissal from service - Reversed by Tribunal - Appeal against, dismissed by High Court - Correctness of'- Held: Correct - Delinquent exonerated by the authorities and the Criminal E Court - Initiation of departmental proceedings by the authorities after lapse of nine years has not been explained - Imputation of misconduct, after exoneration by authorities/ Criminal Court, is beyond anybody's comprehension - Bias on the part of inquiry officer explicit from the record - I. 0. and F I, consequently the disciplinary authority misdirected ~ themselves in law as they posed themselves a wrong question - Principles of natural justice not complied with in the departmental proceedings - Disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the authorities and criminal Court without G assigning any reasons - Though departmental proceeding permissible after recording of the judgment of acquittal by a criminal Court but it must be initiated bonafide - Evidence of driver of jeep, an eyewitness, is totally against the department 137 H 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A - Neither he was cross-examined nor it was held that he deposed falsely - Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned iudgment warranting any interference - Initiation of departmental proceedings against delinquent after acquittal in criminal proceedings - Permissibility of - Central Civil B Service (CCA) Rules, 1965 - r. 14. Disciplinary proceecfings - Renders to nullity - Held: When Inquiry Officer is biased. Respondent was working as Sub-Inspector in the c Intelligence Bureau. His job was to collect information in regard to anti-national activities. One day, while he was carrying the seized smu!~gled goods for delivering them to the customs authorities, he was intercepted by the Police and arrested on the charge of carrying the 0 smuggled goods in colllusion with a smuggler in his official jeep. Accordin~1ly, a criminal proceeding was initiated against him for commission of offences punishable u/ss. 409 and 1208 l.P.C. r/w s. 13(2) of the Foreigners Act; s. 27 of the Arms Act and s.110 of the Customs Act. In the departmental proceeding initiated E against him, the authorities came to a finding that there was no evidence on rec:ord to establish involvement of respondent in the alleg1ed crime. It was directed by the authorities to confiscate the goods so carried by the respondent dropping charges levelled against him and F others. In the criminal proceedings, charges were not proved against him and a judgment of acquittal was recorded against him and other officials accompanying him In the jeep. No appecil was preferred by the authorities/ Union of India. However, later, a second disciplinary G proceeding was initiated against him, which was allegedly not conducted prop1arly, and as a result of the proceedings, the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges of misconduc:t levelled against him. He was dismissed from the service. Appeal filed thereagainst was H dismissed by the appellate authorities. Aggrieved from the UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS v. NAMAN SINGH 139 SE KHA WAT -\ order of the appellate authority, respondent filed an A Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the authorities to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. A writ petition filed thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. B ~- It was contended by the Union of India and Others . that the Tribunal and the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgments in so far as they failed to take into consideration that it is permissible for the disciplinary authority to ini
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.