1. Public servant dismissed following an enquiry by an Administrative Tribunal for corruption and disproportionate assets — challenge to dismissal on grounds of discriminatory rules and natural justice. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 329
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th October 1962.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
State of Orissa and others, Appellants
Versus
Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
M/s R. Ganpathy Iyer and P. D. Menon, Advocates, for Appellants; M/s G. B. Pai and B. Parthasarthy, Advocates and M/s J. B. Dadachanji and O. C. Mathur, Advocates of J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.PARTHASARTHY, G.B.PAI, J.B.DADACHAN, O.C.MATHUR, P.D.MENON, R.Ganapathy Iyer
B.PARTHASARTHY, G.B.PAI, J.B.DADACHAN, O.C.MATHUR, P.D.MENON, R.Ganapathy Iyer
The use of one of two similar disciplinary procedures is not discriminatory under Article 14, even if one lacks a right of appeal against the appointing authority. If constitutional protections are met and grave delinquency is established, the penalty imposed is not justiciable.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Discrimination between two sets of rules - Where two sets of rules for holding enquiries against public servants are simultaneously in operation, the mere adoption of one procedure in preference to another permissible procedure does not justify an inference of unlawful discrimination in the absence of proof of prejudice to the public servant (Paras 7, 8).
(B) Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Right of Appeal - The existence of a right of appeal against an order of a departmental head imposing a penalty under one set of rules, and the absence of such a right of appeal against the order of the appointing authority under another set of rules, does not result in unlawful discrimination (Para 8).
(C) Constitution of India - Art. 311 - Justiciability of Punishment - If the conditions of constitutional protection are complied with and the findings of an enquiry prima facie establish grave delinquency, the order of dismissal passed by a competent authority is not justiciable. The court has no jurisdiction to direct the authority to reconsider the penalty simply because some, but not all, findings were found to be in violation of the rules of natural justice (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
A permanent non-gazetted employee was dismissed from service following an enquiry by an administrative tribunal on charges of receiving illegal gratification and possessing assets disproportionate to income. The employee challenged the dismissal on the grounds that the rules governing the enquiry were discriminatory and violated the rules of natural justice. The High Court held that the rules were discriminatory because they lacked a right of appeal compared to another set of rules and directed the government to reconsider the punishment after setting aside certain findings that violated natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the procedures under the two sets of rules were substantially the same in substance. The lack of a right of appeal against the order of the appointing authority does not constitute discrimination under Article 14. Furthermore, the court held that the High Court erred in directing the reconsideration of the penalty, as the remaining unassailable findings established grave delinquency.
Issues: Whether the application of one set of disciplinary rules over another, where the former lacks a right of appeal, constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 14; and whether a court can direct the reconsideration of a penalty if the findings of the enquiry prima facie establish grave delinquency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mere choice between two permissible procedures does not violate Article 14 unless prejudice is proven. The absence of an appeal against the highest appointing authority is not a ground for striking down rules as discriminatory. Once constitutional guarantees are met and substantial misdemeanor is established, the appropriateness of the penalty is not open to judicial review.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Administrative Tribunal Rules were discriminatory under Article 14 compared to Classification Rules and whether the dismissal order was void due to violations of natural justice. (Para 2 )
3. The Tribunal and Classification Rules provide substantially similar procedures; the absence of an appeal against the Governor's order does not constitute unlawful discrimination under Article 14. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. If an order of dismissal is supported by unassailable findings of grave delinquency and constitutional protections are met, the penalty is not justiciable or subject to court review. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal allowed and the High Court order directing reconsideration of the punishment set aside. (Para 10 )
6. Does the existence of two sets of disciplinary rules, where one lacks a right of appeal, constitute unlawful discrimination under Article 14?
No. Mere adoption of one permissible procedure over another does not justify an inference of unlawful discrimination. The absence of an appeal against the Governor's order, compared to an appeal against a departmental head, is not discriminatory as the final authority in either case rests with the Governor. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Can a court direct a punishing authority to reconsider a penalty if some, but not all, findings of an enquiry are set aside?
No. If the remaining unassailable findings establish grave delinquency and the constitutional guarantee of reasonable opportunity was provided, the penalty is not justiciable. The court cannot review whether the sentence is appropriate if it is justified by the rules and the procedure was consistent with prescribed rules. (Para 9 )
8. What is the scope of judicial review regarding the penalty imposed on a public servant?
The court is not concerned with whether the sentence imposed is appropriate relative to the gravity of the misdemeanor, provided it is justified by the rules and constitutional protections are complied with. The reasons inducing the punishing authority are not justiciable. (Para 9 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. : Bidyabhushan Mohapatra - hereinafter called the respondent was a permanent nongazetted employee of the State of Orissa in the Registration Department and was posted at the material time as a Sub-Registrar at Sambalpur. Information was received by the Government of the State of Orissa that the respondent was habitually receiving illegal gratification and that he was possessed of property totally disproportionate to his income. The case of the respondent was referred by order of the Governor of Orissa to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under R. 4 (1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution. The Tribunal held an enquiry in the presence of the respondent on two charges - (1) relating to five specific heads charging the respondent with having received illegal gratification, and (2) relating to possession of means disproportionate to his income as a Sub-Registrar. The Tribunal held that there was reliable evidence to support four out of the five heads in the first charge of corruption end also the charge relating to possession of means disproportionate to the income and recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service. The finding of the Tribunal was tentatively approved by the Governor Orissa and the respondent was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service as recommended. The respondent made a detailed submission in rejoinder and contended, inter alia, that the Tribunal held the enquiry in a manner contrary to rules of natural justice. After consulting the Public Service Commission the Governor of Orissa by order dated September 26, 1957 directed that the respondent be dismissed from service. The respondent then applied to the High Court of Orissa by petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, inter alia, for a writ quashing the entire proceedings before the Tribunal beginning from the charges and culminating in the order of dismissal and directing the State of Orissa to forbear from giving effect to the order of dismissal dated September 26, 1957 and for a declaration that he be deemed to have continued in his post as Sub-Registrar.
2. In support of his petition the respondent submitted that the order of dismissal was void because the rules relating to the holding of an enquiry against non-gazetted public servants, called the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951 - were discriminatory, and that in holding the enquiry against him the Tribunal had violated the rules of natural justice. Following their view in Dhirendranath Das v. State of Orissa , ILR (1958) Cut 11: the High Court held that the impugned rules were discriminatory and on that account void, and that the respondent was entitled to a writ declaring that the order of dismissal was inoperative. As, however, the case of Dhirendranath Das, ILR (1958) Cut 11: was carried in appeal to this Court, the High Court proceeded to deal with the second submission. The High Court held that the findings of the Tribunal on charges 1(a) and 1(e) were vitiated because it had failed to "observe the rules of natural justice", but they held that the findings on charges 1(c), 1(d) and charge (2) were supported by evidence and were not shown to be vitiated because of failure to observe the rules of natural justice. The High Court accordingly directed that if this Court disagreed with the view in Dhirendranath Das s case, ILR (1958), Cut 11: the findings in respect of charges 1 (a) and 1(e) be set aside as being opposed to the rules of natural justice but the findings in respect of charges 1 (c) and 1(d) and Charge (2) need not be disturbed", and "that it would then be left to the Government to decide whether, on the basis of those charges, the punishment of dismissal should be maintained or else whether a lesser punishment would suffice."
3. The State of Orissa has appealed to this Court wit
