2006 Supreme(SC) 174

2006(2) Supreme 385
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
M/s. Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Haridas & Anr. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3071 of 2004
Decided on 24-2-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Uday Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan and Ms. Pooja Nanekar, Advocate (for M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co.).
For the Respondents : Uday B. Dube, Kuldip Singh, A.P. Mayee and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure (N.P.) Advocates.

Important pointIn a matter of disciplinary proceedings the High Court exercises a limited power.

Headnote:Service Law—Departmental Proceedings—Powers of High Court—In a matter of disciplinary proceedings the High Court exercises a limited power—Respondent was appointed as an Assistant Field Officer in appellant company which deals in production and supply of seeds to the farmers—Charge of misconduct in distribution of seeds to eligible seed growers—Non recovery of outstanding amount — Enquiry Officer in his report found him guilty of commission of misconducts—Show cause notice issued to respondent as to why two increments of pay from his salary should not be directed to be withheld permanently—Second show cause notice issued in supercession of the earlier notice as to why punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him—Writ petition filed by respondent questioning legality of the said order—High Court held that disciplinary proceedings had been held in accordance with law but directed his reinstatement with full back wages—Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the second show cause notice on ground that the same was not provided under the rules—(No)—Charges levelled against 1st respondent were serious in nature—Impugned judgment of High Court cannot be sustained.

       Held : The charges levelled against the 1st respondent were serious in nature. He has been found guilty of grave misconduct including defalcation of huge amount, preparation of false documents as also misappropriation of 22 bags of DCH 32 cotton seeds. It has also been proved that he has violated instructions for distribution of seeds apart from remaining absent from work. It is not a case, with respect to the High Court, where the disciplinary authority had differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The question of differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority would arise only when the delinquent officer is exonerated either wholly or in part of the charges levelled against him whereas the disciplinary authority forms a different opinion. Most of the charges have been found proved and the Disciplinary Authority to that extent did not differ with the report of the Enquiry Officer. So far as the quantum of punishment proposed by the Enquiry Officer is concerned, if in terms of the rules, he had no authority to do so, the Managing Director was entitled to apply his own mind and could come to a conclusion as regard the quantum of punishment which should be imposed on the delinquent officer. He in that view of the matter was not obligated to assign any far less sufficient and cogent reason as it was not the requirement of law. In any view of the matter, from the second notice dated 22.3.1994 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation it is evident that sufficient and cogent reasons have been assigned therein. A departmental proceeding stricto sensu is not a judicial proceeding. There is nothing in the rules to show that the disciplinary authority cannot consider the materials on record with a view to form an independent opinion as regard quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the delinquent employee. He might have committed a mistake in issuing the first show cause notice but by reason thereof he cannot be held to be wholly precluded from issuing the second show cause notice as thereby he intended to rectify the mistake committed by him. (Paras 13 to 16)

       The High Court proceeded on the basis that in absence of the specific provision the second show cause notice was impermissible. It failed to consider that there was no statutory interdict in this behalf. An administrative order can be recalled. A mistake can be rectified. The Managing Director of the Corporation as a disciplinary authority, it has not been shown to us, lacked inherent jurisdiction in relation thereto. The 1st respondent held an office of trust. He distributed seeds to the farmers. He collected a huge amount from them. He not only defalcated a huge amount but also misappropriated some bags of seeds. It was in the aforementioned situation improper for the High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. It is now well settled that in a matter of disciplinary proceedings the High Court exercises a limited power. (Paras 20 and 21)