UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus J. AHMED

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 07-03-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G' 
H 
504 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
J. AHMED 
March 7, 1979 
(D. A. DESAI AND 0. OIINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
All lndia S.rvices (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules 1958-r. 16-Scope 0/1 
Words and Phrase'S: Misconduct-What conStitutes to attract punishment in 
disciplinary proccedings-Mene acts of om1Ssion and commission or negligence 
in perforn1ance of duty-If nzisconduct. 
The respondent, an officer belon&in: to the Indian Administrative Service, 
was due to retire on February 1, 1962. 
Since a departmental enquiry in 
respect of some charges levelled aiainst him wa! pending, he was retained 
in service, in the first in!tance, for a period of three months beyond the date 
of his retirement or till tho termination of departmenta-1 proceedings whichever 
v.·as earlier, 
This date was, however, extended from time to time and evcn 4 
tually on August 28, 1963 an order under r. 16(2) of the All India Services 
(Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 was pas1oed. 
That Rule provides that "a 
member ef the service under suspension on a char~e of misconduct shrill not 
be required or pef'mitted to retire from service but sha.U be retained in service 
until the enquiry into th11 charges against him is concluded and a final order 
is passed," 
.. 
The charges levelled against the respondent were (1) that he completely 
failed to take any effective preventive measures a~ainst widespread disturbances 
which broke out in the district, (2) th•t he •bowed complete lack of leadership 
and failed to give proper directions to his subordinate officers, (3) 
that he 
did not personally visit the scene of disturbances; ( 4) that he did not keep 
the Government informed of the extent of disturbances; and (5) that he showed 
complete inaptitude, lack of foresight, capacity to take firm and quick decision 
and, that therefore, he proved himself completely unlit to bold any responsible 
position. 
On the report of the enquiry officer that all the charges {except one) were 
substantially proved, he was removed from 1ervice. 
Striking down the order of his removal from service, the Jligh Court held 
that (i) nog1igence and efficiency in the performance of one's duty would not 
constitute misconduct so as to attract punishment of removal from service and 
(ii) under r. 16(2) an officer could be retained in service only for the purpose 
of holding or completing disciplinary proceedings for misconduct and since in 
this cftSe there· was no enquiry into what could be cad.led misconduct, his reten-
tion in service beyond his date of retirement was void. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: l(a) No case, stricto srnsu, for a dis.ciplinary proceeding for 
misconduct had been made out agaimt the respondont. Any ~.eficiency in the 
discharge of one's duties would not [Constitute misconduct. 
The enquiry held 
l • 
y 
• 
.. 
, • 
I ' y-
' 
UNION v. J, AHMBD 
sos 
was to establish that the respondent Wa6 not fit to hold a rcaponsible post; 
A 
it did not establish any misconduct on his part to deserve the punishment. [516 HJ 
(b) Conduct which is blameworthy on the p~rt of a government servan' 
in the context of the Conduct Rules would be misconduct, that is if a govern-
ment servant conducts himself in a way which is not consistent 'vith due and 
faithful discharge. of his duties it is misconduct. Similarly, disrOp.ird of an 
essential condition of the contract of service may constitute mh;conduct. So 
B 
too an error or omission resulting in serious or atrocious consequences may 
amount to misconduct. 
But competence for the post, capability to hold and 
dischllrge the functions attached to it with requisite efficiency are different from 
some act or omission on the part of its holder so as to be1 called misconduct. 
A single act or omission: or error of judgment while holding a post of respon-
sibility unoccompanied by serious or atrocious conduct would not constitute mis-
conduct. [511 G-Hl 
C 
Pierce v. Fosttr, 17 QB 536 at 542; Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator 
Newspapers), [1959] 1 WLR 698; S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India, [1967] 
2 SCR 566; P. H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta, [1964] 2 SCR 104; referred 
~ 
-
(c) The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954 prescribe a codo of 
conduct for members of the service, such for example1 as, that e"Very member 
shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and th&t 
an act or omission contrary to or in breach of the prescribed norms of conduct 
would constitute misconduct f

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