UNION OF INDIA versus S.B. MISRA

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 14-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
S.B. MISRA 
AUGUST 14, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India : Articles 309, 310, 311-Defence personnel-Ap-
plicability of CCS(CC&A) Rules to-Held-A1ticle 310(1) expressly excludes 
applicability of provisions of CCS(CC&A) Rules to defence personnel. 
Doctrine of pleasure-Applicability of 
Service Law: 
CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965-Central Civil Services (Classification Con-
D trol andAppeal)-R.ule ](}-Defence personnel-Lecture in College of Milit01y 
Engineering -Department inquiry against culminating into order of compul-
sory . retirement-Order challenged for non-supply of copy of inquiry 
report-Held, delinquent not entitled to supply of copy of inquiry report as 
CCS(CC&A) Rules have no application to defencepersonnel. 
F 
The respondent, a lecturer in the College of Military Engineering, 
challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the punishment 
of compulsory retirement awarded to him consequent upon a departmen-
tal inquiry, as invalid for non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report. 
The ·tribunal set aside the order giving liberty to the department to 
proceed with the case from the stage of supplying the copy of the inquiry 
report. The competent authority thereafter purporting to exercise powers 
under Rule 10(4) of CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965, ordered that the respon-
dent was deemed to be under suspension till the inquiry was completed. 
The respondent again challenged the said order before the Tribunal. The 
G Tribunal held that Rule 10(4) of the Rules had no application pending 
inquiry and the respondent would be deemed to be in service. It directed . 
the department to reinstate the respondent with all 
consequential 
benefits, ~grieved, Union of India filed the present appeal by special 
leave. Meanwhile the respondent was reinstated with all consequential 
H benefits. 
704 
U.0.1. v. S.B. MISRA 
705 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, A 
this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to 
supply the copy of the Inquiry Report and to take further action thereon 
and to reinstate the respondent till the inquiry is illegal. [707-G] 
1.2. The CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 have no application to the defence 
personnel. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to the supply of 
the Inquiry Report as contemplated by Clause (2) to Article 311 of the 
Constitution read with the Rules. [707-F-G] 
B 
Union of India and Anr. v. KS. Subramanian, [1989) Supp. 1 SCC C 
331, relied on. 
Jagatrai Mahinchand and Ajwani v. Union of India, (1967) SLR 471; 
S.P. Behl v. Union of India C.A.No. (1918) of (1966), decided on 8.3.1968) 
and Union of India v. Indrajit Datta, C.A. 5392-93/93 decided on 6.9.1994, D 
reiterated. 
1.3. The rules made under proviso to Article 309 will be subject to 
doctrine of pleasure enshrined in Article 310. Article 310(1) expressly 
excludes the applicability of the provisions of the Rules to the defence 
personnel. [707-F] 
E 
Moti Lal Deka v. Union of India, [1964) 5 SCR, 683; and Shamsher 
Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR 814, followed. 
Ramjan Khan v. Union of India, [1991) 1 SCC 588; Managi.ng Director, 
ECIL & Ors. v. B. Karnnakar & Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 727 and Union of India 
F 
v. Tutsi Ram Patel, [1985] 3 SCC 398, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7756 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.92 of the Central Ad-
G 
ministrative Tribunal Bombay in C.P. No. 130/92 in O.A. NO. 616of1990. 
Ms. Amareshwari, S.A. Matto, Ms. Anil Katiyar, and Ms. Sushma 
Suri for the Appellants. 
Vimal Dave for the Respondent. 
H 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
c 
Leave granted. 
The case has a chequered career. The respondent while working as 
a lecturer in the College of Military Engineering, Pune was compulsorily 
retired by proceedings dated July 27, 1987, as a measure of punishment, 
after following departmental inquiry. He challenged its validity in O.A. 
616/90 contending that he was not supplied with the copy of the Inquiry 
Report and, therefore, his compulsory retirement was not valid in law. 
Following the ratio in Ramzan Khan v. Union of India, (1991] 1 SCC 588, 
decided by a bench of three Judges, the Tribunal by its order dated July 
23, 1992, set aside the order giving liberty to t1:1e appellant to take ap-
propriate action from the stage of supplying the copy
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.