UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY & ORS. versus UDAI BHAN SINGH

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 21-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY & ORS.
v.
UDAI BHAN SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 9303 of 2013)
NOVEMBER 21, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law: Reinstatement – Respondent functioning as
Postal Assistant – Charge of misconduct – Authorising payments
of commission under the NSC Scheme to agents who were found
to be fake – Charges were essentially based on the failure to verify
the bills which had been submitted by so-called NSC agents and
the failure to make entries of payment in the ledger – Receipts were
found to be prepared in the names of fake agents as a result of
which payment of NSC commission in the amount of Rs.6.65 lakhs
was wrongfully made – Inquiry officer found that charges were
proved/partially proved against respondent – Disciplinary
Authority awarded penalty of reduction of pay of five years –
Appellate Authority ordered dismissal from service – However,
Tribunal set aside both the orders and restored the proceedings to
the  Disciplinary Authority with liberty to issue notice to show cause
to respondent and after allowing him opportunity of submitting
representation to arrive at final decision – After order of Tribunal,
a notice to show cause was issued to respondent –  Disciplinary
Authority found that charges were proved against the respondent
which warranted dismissal from service – The said findings were
upheld by Appellate Authority – Tribunal dismissed OA by
respondent – However, High Court directed reinstatement of
respondent on the ground of violation of principle of natural
justice and vitiation of inquiry by delay following an earlier order
of remand of Tribunal – High Court held that there was a failure
on the part of the inquiry officer to provide documents to the
respondent during the course of disciplinary inquiry and that
notice was issued by Disciplinary Authority nearly eight years
following the first order of Tribunal – Appeal by employer-UOI –
Held: Tribunal, while dealing with the submission, came to the
conclusion that the respondent was attempting to take undue
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 527
527
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
advantage of the non availability of cash receipts but the payment
could be verified from other records and documents which were
maintained in the Head Post Office – High Court merely observed
that the respondent was not provided the documents which were
relied upon – High Court did not consider which documents were
not supplied, the relevance of those documents to the charge of
misconduct and the prejudice, if any, that resulted to the respondent
by the non availability of the relevant documents – Even in the
pleadings of the respondent, the plea that there was a failure to
supply documents was vague and there was no reference to which
specific document ought to have been made available – Tribunal
restored the proceedings back to the Disciplinary Authority to
enable the appellants to issue a fresh notice to show cause to the
respondent and to arrive at a conclusion on the nature of the
misconduct, if any, after furnishing an opportunity to the
respondent of making a representation – Neither was the inquiry
required to be held afresh nor was fresh evidence to be recorded
– After the order of the Tribunal, a notice to show cause was issued
to the respondent after eight years – But respondent had been
reinstated following the order of the Tribunal setting aside the
disciplinary action, pending the conclusion of the process by the
Disciplinary Authority – Therefore, the delay on the part of the
Disciplinary Authority in issuing a show cause notice in the first
instance and in passing a final order thereafter was not a matter
of any prejudice to the respondent – For the said reasons, the High
Court was in error in interfering with the exercise of the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the appellants – The misconduct was proved – The
penalty imposed cannot be held to be disproportionate or arbitrary
– High Court erred in setting aside the punishment and ordering
reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  According to the Tribunal, the non availability
of a particular document on the record did not make any
difference to the charge of misconduct which was established by
other materials which were available on the record. The High
Court merely observed that the respondent was not provided
the documents which were relied upon and that there was an
erro

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