LexUNION OF INDIA versus Y.S. SADHU, EX-INSPECTOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 13 S.C.R. 784 UNION OF INDIA v. Y.S. SADHU, EX-INSPECTOR (Civil Appeal No.5771 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Labour law: Disciplinary proceedings - Non-furnishing c of enquiry report to delinquent employee - Order of dismissal - Duty of courts/tribunal to interfere - Held: When Court finds that there was violation of rules of natural justice, it should set aside order of dismissal - However there would not be rein- statement - Proceedings would continue and left to be de- D cided by authority concerned, based on fresh enquiry. The writ petitioner-respondent was dismissed from service, on the basis of report submitted by enquiry of- ficer, recording establishment of charges. The High Court directed reinstatement without payment of back wages. E Hence the present appeal. Respondent contended that as the requisite prin- ciples of natural justice were not followed, High Court had passed the orders in his favour. F Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In all cases where the enquiry officer's re- port is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to G the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court/Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was preju- diced because of non-supply of the report. If the non-sup- ply of the report would have made no difference to the H 784 UNION OF INDIA v. Y.S. SADHU, 785 EX-INSPECTOR ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/ A Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the B Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any inter- nal appellate or revisional authority), there would be nei- ther a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a de- c nial of the reasonable opportunity. If the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result, it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the 0 proper relief that should be granted is to direct re-instate- ment of the employee with liberty to the authority/man- agement to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the em- ployee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages E and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his re-instatement if ultimately ordered, should in- variably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee sue- F ceeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be re-instated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the re-instatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The re-instate- G ment made as a result of the setting aside the inquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a re-in- statement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. [Para 7] [P 788 C-H] [785-A-D] H 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S. M. School for Girls aand Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 293; UP State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 264 - relied on. 2. There shall not be any reinstatement but the pro- B ceedings shall continue from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. [Para 8] [789-H] 3. If any representation is made by respondent for varying the order of termination to one of compulsory re- c tirement to the concerned authorities, the same to be con- sidered in its proper perspective. [Para 9] [790-B] D Case Law Reference (2002) 10 sec 293 relied on (200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.