UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus R. REDDAPPA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 05-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
R. REDDAPPA AND ANOTHER 
AUGUST 5. 1993 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
SeJVice Law : Railway Sovice (Discipline and Appeal) Rules: Rule 
14(2)-Dismissal from se1vice without depmtmental inquily on the ground of 
being not reasonably ·practicable-Action vitiated, if there was no niaten·az on -
ivhich any reasonable person could con1e to that conclusion_.:..An ord~~· 
othenvise illegal passed by disciplina1y auth01ity cannot be assumed to be 
legal on 111ere affinnation in apjJeal or revision-Disniissa/ set aside-Direc-
tion regarding payment of backwages and pensionwy benefits issed. 
Constitution of India 1950 : A1ticle 3ll-Dismissa/ of from sen•ice 
without holding enqui,y-Mlhcther violation of 
About 800 railway employees were dismissed under Rule 14 (2) of 
Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal Rules, for participation in Loco 
Running Statf Association strike in January, 1981. In each case, the 
disciplinary authority held that it was not practicable to hold an inquiry. 
Most of the employees pursued their remedy by appeals, re,·isions, writ 
Petitions and Claim Petitions. Some of the applications, filed by the 
empfoi·ees in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh were allowed as appellate 
authority had pa~scd non-speaking orders. The Revie\.V Petition filed by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the employees, whose Writ Petitions had been dismissed by the High Court, 
were allowt'd, in view· of decision of this Court in U.O.f. v. Tulsi Reon Patel, 
F 
[1985] 3 SCC 398. Directions were issued to the Appellate authority to 
decide appeals afresh n the light of observations made by this Court in 
Satya Vir Singh v. Uniun of India a11d Others, [1985] 4 SCC 252 and Ram 
Chander v. Union of India, [1986] 3 SCC 103. However, the appellate 
authorit)' na.aintaiucd ther.order of dismissal. The Central Administrative G 
Tribunal. (Hyderabad) set aside the order of the appellate authority for 
non-application of mind and absence of 1naterial justifying dismissal. 
The employees working in Loco Running Sheds of Jodhpur had also 
challenged their dismissal by way of appeals before the departmental 
authority. They filed Writ Petitions in the Rajasthan High Court, as the H 
503 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A appeals were not decided within reasonable time. The Writ Petitions were 
transferred to this Court and were disposed of, alongwith the decision in 
Tulsi Ram Patel case. Revision Petitions filed by the employees, in view of 
the observations made by the court, were dJsmissed by the revision 
authority. The Central Admin.istrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, quashed the 
B orders passed by the revision authority. 
The employees working in Chandigarh area had challenged the 
orders of their dismissal by Writ Petition, which were transferred to this 
court and disposed of alongwith the Tulsi Ram Patel case. The employees 
filed Revision Petition seeking direction to the concerned authority to 
C decide the case. The Central Administrative Tribunal, held that the ratio 
of Tulsi Ram Patel was of no assistance, as appeals had been rejected 
earlier and nothin·g was pending. 
The employees approached the Minister and he passed an order 
reinstating them just one day prior to the Ministry fell. However, it was 
D rescinded by the President. 
E 
F 
Union of India filed appeals against the orders of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, allowing claim Applications of the employees. 
The employees, whose claim Applications had been dismissed by the 
Tribunal also preferred appeals before this Court. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : Jurisdiction to exercise power under Rule 14(2) of the 
Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was dependent on existence 
of the primary fact that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry. 
If there was no material, on which any reasonable person could have came 
to that conclusion, then the action taken was vitiated by erroneous as-
sumption of jurisdictional fact. (509-G] 
Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, [19M5] 3 SCC 398, Satya Vir Singh 
G v. Union of India and Others, (1985] 4 SCC 252 and Ram Chander v. Union 
of India and Others, (1986] 3 SCC 103, referred to. 
2. Illegal order passed by the disciplinary authority does not assume 
character of legality, because of afiirmation in appeal or revision, unless 
the higher authority is found to have applied its mind to the basic infir-
H. mities. Mere re-iteration. or repetition, instead of addi

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