UNION OF INDIA versus ALOK KUMAR

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 16-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 5 S.C.R. 35 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
ALOK KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal NO. 3369 of 2010 etc.) 
APRIL 16, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968: 
A 
B 
r. 9(2) - Inquiry under the Rules - Retired officers of the C 
Department appointed as 'inquiry officer' - Circulars issued 
by Government permitting such appointment - Appointment 
challenged being violative of the rules and Public Servants 
(Inquiries) Act - Held: Recourse to the provisions of the Act 
not applicable in the facts of the case - Appointment of retir~d 
officers as 'inquiry officer' is permissible - Expression 'other D 
authority' ulr. 9(2) does not mean a person in service alone -
The Rule does not exclude appointment of retired employees 
as other authority- Application of principle of exclusion cannot 
be inferred in absence of specific language in the Rule - The 
circular is not in conflict with r. 9(2) - It is rather supplementing E 
the Rule - The appointment was also done in public interest 
- The practice of such appointment has been adopted for a 
considerable time and there is no bar to such practice - The 
delinquents having accepted it, cannot challenge it -
Delinquents have also not been able to show that they suffered 
F 
serious prejudice because of appointment of retired officers 
- Service Law - Departmental Proceedings - Public Servants 
(Inquiries) Act, 1850. 
rr. 9(2) and (6) and Schedule 3 - Interpretation of r. 9(2) 
G 
- Appointment of retired officers as inquiry officers under the 
Rules, challenged as violative of spirit of the Rule - Held: The 
expression 'other authority' is intended to cover a vast field, it 
should not be given a narrow meaning -
The provision 
35 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 OJ 5 S.C.R. 
A 
provides a discretion in matter of appointment of 'inquiry 
officer' ...; The provision vesting discretion cannot be 
interpreted in a manner which could take away the 
discretionary power - Interpretation should be such as to 
further the object of such rule - A statute should be examined 
8 
in its entirety arid not merely looking at a provision in isolation 
- Principle of ejusdem generis is attracted where the words 
preceding the general words pertains to class genus and not 
heterogeneous collection of items - Principle of ejusdem 
generis not applicable to r. 9(2) -Rule of contextual 
C interpretation is applicable to the provision in question -
interpretation of Statutes. 
Administrative Law - Natural justice - Non-furnishing of 
documents (issued by eve) to the delinquent -
Wheth~r 
caused prejudice to delinquent - Held: In absence of proof 
D that eve advice was taken into consideration in, departmental 
proceedings or that there is any rule providing that 
implementation of such advice is mandatory, prejudice 
against the delinquent cannot be presumed - Onus is on the 
delinquent to· show that non-furnishing of the document 
E resulted in de facto prejudice - Prejudice de facto should not 
be based on a mere apprehension or even on a reasonable 
suspicion - It is not permissible to set aside departmental 
inquiries merely on the basis of apprehended prejudice -On 
facts, delinquent failed to show any de facto prejudice on 
F 
account of non-furnishing of the document - Service Law -
Departmental Proceedings. 
G 
H 
Maxim - ejusdem generis - Applicability of. 
Doctrines I Principles: 
Principle of necessary implication - Applicability of 
Principle of exclusion - Applicability of 
Words and Phrases: 'authority' - Meaning of 
UNION OF INDIA v. ALOK KUMAR 
37 
The question for consideration in ttte appeals was A 
whether under the relevant Rules and provisions of 
Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, the Railway 
Authorities have the jurisdiction to appoint a retired 
employee of the Department as 'Inquiry Officer' within the 
ambit of Rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & B 
Appeal) Rules, 1968. In one of the appeals, an additional 
issue arose as to V'!fhether non-furnishing of the Central 
Vigilance Commission advice/notes, to the delinquent, 
resulted in prejudice to him. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Departmental proceedings against 
the respondent was rE!stricted to the applicability of Rule 
c 
9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 
1968. Thus, recourse to the provisions of the Public D 
Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 for the purposes of 
interpretation or deciding the controvercies in issue was 
ent

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