UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus BISHAMBER DAS DOGRA

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 26-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
(2009] 9 S.C.R. 828 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
BISHAMBER DAS DOGRA 
(Civil Appeal No. 7087 of 2002) 
MAY 26, 2CJ9 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. 8.S. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Service law - Dismissal from service - Employee-
C security guard in CISF not completed six years in service but 
deserted the LINE five times - Dismissal from service by 
disciplinary authority - Set aside by courts below holding that 
enquiry report not furnished, employee not given opportunity 
to file objections and past conduct taken into consideration 
o while imposing punishment -Justification of- Held:Not 
justified - Non-furnishing of enquiry report to delinquent 
employee would not ipso facto vitiate disciplinary proceedings 
- Employee has to establish that real prejudice was caused 
to him by not furnishing enquiry report - Disciplinary authority 
E may take into consideration past conduct of delinquent 
employee for imposing punishment -
On facts, no 
explanation for repeated misconduct or absenteeism - It was 
gross violation of discipline - Employee did not explain as 
to what prejudice caused to him by non-furnishing of enquiry 
F report nor that there was failure of justice - Also application 
for leave not submitted - Thus, . order of High Court set aside 
and that of disciplinary authority restored. 
The questions which arose for consideration in this 
appeal are whether the delinquent employee is not 
G supposed to establish de-facto prejudice in case the 
enquiry report is not supplied to him before awarding 
·. •P.U.n·i~hment; and whether the order of punishment would 
. be v.itiated if the Disciplinary Authority takes into 
. consideration the past conduct of the delinquent 
H 
828 
. 
f
'
+ 
..... 
!-• 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BISHAMBER DAS 
829 
DOG RA 
-+ 
employee for the purpose of punishment? 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. In the instant case, the issues relate to the 
observance of the principles of natural justice as the 
B 
delinquent employee may not get an opportunity to make 
the representation against the findings of fact recorded 
t 
by the Enquiry Officer against him and also for the 
proposed punishment by the disciplinary authority. 
Principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait-
jacket formulae and its observance would depend upon G 
the fact situation of each case. Therefore, the application 
of the principles of natural justice has to be understood 
with reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of 
a particular case. [Para 9] [836-C-E] 
D 
-
1.2. An order is required to be examined on the 
., 
touchstone of doctrine of prejudice. (Para 11] (837-A-B] 
1.3. In case the enquiry report had not been made 
available to the delinquent employee it would not ipso 
E 
facto vitiate the disciplinary proceedings as it would 
depend· upon the facts and circumstances of the case 
and the delinquent employee has to establish _that real 
• 
~ 
prejudice has been caused to him by not furnishing the 
enquiry report to him. [Para 16] [839-F-G] 
F 
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief 
Inspector of Mines & Anr. v. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965; Dr. 
Umrao Singh Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. 
(1994) 4 SCC ~28; Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Venaktesh 
" 
Gururao Kurati JT (2006) 2 SC 73; Managing Director, EGIL 
G 
~· 
v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Union of India v. Mohd. 
Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471; Haryana Financial 
Corporation v. Kai/ash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC. 31; 
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; S.K. 
Singh v. Central Bank oflndia & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 415; State 
H 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
-t 
-A of U.P. v. Harendra Arora & Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2315; Aligarh 
Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529; 
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237; -S.L. 
Kapoor v. Jagmohan AIR 1981 SC 136, referred to. 
B 
2. It is desirable that delinquent employee may be 
informed by the disciplinary authority that his past 
conduct would be taken into consideration while 
imposing the punishment. But in case of misconduct of 
-+ 
grave nature or indiscipline, even in absence of statutory 
.., 
c rules, the authority may take into consideration the 
indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee 
for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the 
punishment if the facts of the case so require. [Para 25] 
/ 
[842-E-G] 
D 
State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar AIR 1963 SC 1612; 
Sta(e of Mysore v. Manche Gowda AI

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