UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus PRAKASH KUMAR TANDON

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 17-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 855 
' 
~ 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
A 
...._i' 
v . 
PRAKASH KUMAR TANDON 
(Civil Appeal No. 7349 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 17, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
... 
Service Law: 
Disciplinary proceedings - Application for summoning qf 
witness by delinquent employee not considered by Enquiry c 
officer - Justification of - Held: Not justified - It was obligatory 
on part of Enquiry officer to pass an order in the application 
- He could not refuse to consider the same - Enquiry officer, 
being a quasi judicial authority, must perform his functions 
fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement 
D 
of principles of natural justice - If disciplinary proceedings 
was not fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn that the 
delinquent employee was prejudiced thereby- Establishment 
Code of Indian Railways, Vol I -
Chapter V, para 3 -
Principles of natural justice. 
E 
Disciplinary proceedings - Initiated after raid conducted 
by Vigilance Department - Appointment of the Chief, 
Vigilance Department as Enquiry officer - Propriety of- Held: 
Not proper - It was unfair to the delinquent employee. 
Respondent was working in the Department of F 
-- t 
Railways as Inspector, Works. Charge-sheet was issued 
against him on the premise that he accepted sub-
standard wood. Respondent gave written letter 
requesting the Inquiry Officer to summon one 'B' as ,a 
witness. 'B' was an Assistant Engineer purportedly 
G 
responsible for quality of wood. The Inquiry Offic~r 
ignored the letter of respondent. In the disciplinary 
'"'(' 
proceedings, respondent was found guilty and as 
penalty, his pay was reduced. Appellate Authority 
enhanced the penalty by further reducing the pay. 
855 
H 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent filed application before the Tribunal inter 
alia contending. that since 'B' was not examined as a 
+~ 
witness, the order imposing penalty was unsustainable. 
Tribunal allowed the application. Writ petition filed by 
Appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the 
B present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The disciplinary proceedings were 
initiated after a raid was conducted by the Vigilance 
,>· 
Department. The enquiry officer was the Chief of the 
c Vigilance Department. He evidently being from the 
Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to the 
delinquent officer, should not have been appointed as an 
enquiry officer at all. [Para 14] (861-G] 
1.2. In any event, the Tribunal as also the High Court 
D cannot be sa·id to· have erred in holding that 'B' should 
have been examined as a witness. The Central Railway 
Administration as far back as on 3-4-1990 had issued a 
clarification stating that woodwork shall continue to be 
passed by Asst. Engineer. (Paras 12 and 16] (861-A, DJ 
E 
1.3. The principles of natural justice demand that an 
applica.tion for summoning a witness. by the delinquent 
officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was 
obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an 
order in the said application. He could not refuse to 
F consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration 
to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether 
'r
any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for 
the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A 
disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An 
G 
enquiry.officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore, 
must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which 
is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of 
natural justice. If the disciplinary proceedings have not 
been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn th~t the 
delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby. Though over 
H 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 
857 
TANDON 
the years, the principle of natural justice has been 
A 
watered down but in a situation of this nature, the 
~-r 
concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High 
Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering 
from any legal infirmity warranting interference. [Paras 17, 
19 and 20) [862-C-D-H; 863-A-B] 
8 
M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88 
and S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 S<?C 379, 
relied on. 
-
A. 
Case Law Reference: 
~ 
(2006) s sec 88 
referred to 
Para 18 c 
(1980) 4 sec 379 
relied on 
Para 20 
CIVIL ·APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7349 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.2005 of the High 
D 
Cou

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