UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M. B. PATNAIK & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 11-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
, 
' 
.. 
I 
817 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
M. B. PATNAIK & ORS . 
February 11, 1981 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
Disciplinary Proceedings in a service matter-Order of reversion quashed 
by the High Court on a technical ground-Propriety of the second enquiry on 
merits-Whether it is necessary that the enquiry which had been held in part 
by more than one enquiry offecers should be continued by the satne enquiry 
officers until the end-Original enquiry officers ceased to hold their 1'e~pec1ivc 
offices by rcasori of their promotion to higher posts-Whether t11e second enquiry 
A 
B 
done by them while holding the higher promotional posts are bad and without 
C 
authority of law. 
Allowing the appeals by special leave, the Court, 
HELD: (1) When an earlier order of reversion was quashed on a techni~ 
cal ground, a second enquiry on merits could be held and it is open to the dis-
ciplinary authority to continue the proceedings in accordance with Jaw. 
The 
order of reinstatement pursuant thereto is not a bar to the second enquiry. 
D 
[820 F-GJ 
Superintendent (Tech. I), Central Excise I.D.D. Jahalpur and Ors. v. Pratap 
Rai, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 729; Anand Narain Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 
A.LR. 1979 S.C. 1923, followed. 
(2) It is not at all necessary that the enquiry which had been held in part 
by more than one enquiry officers should be continued by the same enquiry 
officers until the end. The post which the members of the Inquiry Committee 
held originally might have been ceased to exist at a later stage, or one or more 
of the members of the Inquiry Committee may no longer be awilable either 
on account of retirement or due to any other cause. For that reason, it could 
not be held that the enquiry could not be continued at all. Therefore, there 
could be no valid objection to the supplementary enquiry being continued by 
the very two individuals, in the instant case even after they had coosed to hold 
their respective offices which they held at the time of the original enquiry. 
[823 G-H, 824 A·B] 
General Manager, Eastern Railway and another v. Jwala Prasad 
Singh, 
[1970] 1 sec 103, applied. 
[Having regard to the long lapse of time, the offence having been alleged 
to have been committed in or about 1955, the Court held that the fresh enquiry 
need not be held, and accepted the equitable offer of the Union Railways and 
directed payment of Rs. 12,000 /· to each of the respondent employees.] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2119-2121 
of 1979. 
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
10-1-1979 of thoe Orissa High Court in O.J.C. Nos. 1261/76, 833/77 
and 834/77. 
5-214 SCI/81 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l1981] 2 s.c.R. 
AND 
Civil Appeal No. 389 of 1981. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated 
10-1-1979 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 832/77. 
M. M. Abdul Khadar, P.A. Francis, Gurumurthy and R. N. Pvddar 
for the Appellants. 
Amlan Ghosh for the Respondent•. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VARADARAJAN, J.-These appeals by special leave have been filed 
against two judgments of a Division Bench of the Onssa High Court 
(C. A. No. 389 of 1981) arising out of the judgment in Original Juris-
diction Case No. 832 of 1977 and C. As. Nos. 2119-2121 of 1979 
arising out of Original Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 1261 of 1976 and 833 
and 834 of 1977 respectively. P. N. L. Das, the respondent in C.A. 
No. 389 of 1981 was appointed as a Booking Clerk in the South Eastern 
Railway in 1955 and had been duly confirmed at that post. 
M. B. 
Patnaik, the respondent in C. A. No. 2119 of 1979, was working as a 
confumed Commercial Clerk at Khurda Road in the South Eastern 
Railway, having been appointed in January-February 1964. D. Sahu 
and S. C. Mitra, the respondents in C.As. Nos. 2120 and 2121 of 1979 
respectively were working as confirmed Booking Clerks in the South 
Eastern Railway at about the same time. 
A departmental enquiry 
was initiated against these four respondents and three others, namely, 
Ch. N. Murty, B. S. N, Rao and B. Papa Rao in 1964 on the basis of 
a report of the Travelling Insipector of Accounts, and two charges were 
framed against them. 
The second charge was not pressed, ,md we 
are, therefore, concerned only with the disciplinary proceeding relating 
to the first charge, which led to the removal of all the seven persons 
from service. 
The first charge framed again

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