IMPORTANT POINT
In a service matter where statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in statute or passes order without application of mind, judicial review would be maintainable.

Headnote:Service Law - Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 10(3) - Punishment of removal from service - Appellant was engaged as casual labour in 1978 and was declared as monthly rated casual labour in 1986 - He was issued a service card - In a scheme for regularization in 1989, his service card was sent for verification - Report was received that it was fake one - Inquiry Officer in disciplinary enquiry found that contents of service card were correct - Disciplinary authority was not satisfied with report and sent it back to Inquiry Officer - Without further inquiry and without giving any further opportunity of hearing to appellant, Inquiry Officer opined that said service card was fake - Punishment of removal from service was imposed - Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages - High Court set aside order of Tribunal in writ - Appeal - Disciplinary authority on receiving first report from Inquiry Officer did not pass any order but merely sent a demi-official letter to Inquiry Officer - It could not be an order passed in terms of Rule 10 of Rules - Inquiry Officer on basis of that letter could not have arrived at a different finding - Conclusion arrived that service card was forged was only because purported card had not been issued by employer - Entries in card were not verified - Tribunal rightly held that matter having not been remitted to disciplinary authority for a further inquiry under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Rules, same was illegal and without jurisdiction - Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside - Matter remitted to disciplinary authority.
       Held : Indisputably the Inquiry Officer was enjoined with a duty to enquire into the charges of misconduct levelled against Appellant. He enquired into the matter. He found that the contents of the service card were correct. In other words, the particulars in regard to the period of work, place of work and the nature of work entered into therein were correct. He might not have been recorded that the service card was genuine or fake but substance of the allegation against Appellant was as to whether he had obtained an appointment by using a fake service card.(Para 12)
       The disciplinary authority merely sent a demi-official letter to the Inquiry Officer. He did not pass any order. The file was sent back to him for a clear remark on every point of charges framed against Appellant. It could not have been either an order passed in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 or sub-Rule (3) thereof. The disciplinary authority was a statutory authority. He was, therefore, bound to act within the four corners of the statute. Procedures relating to conduct of a disciplinary proceeding have been laid down by the Rules. He was bound to follow the same scrupulously. It is one thing to say that he wanted the Inquiry Officer to state the points to clear the said findings arrived at by him on each of the charges separately, but he did not have his jurisdiction to issue the direction under either of the sub-rules of Rule 10. Inquiry Officer held a further enquiry in furtherance of the direction of the disciplinary authority. He proceeded on the basis that his Disciplinary Authority required him to hold further enquiry. Inquiry Officer, therefore, pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said letter dated 2.1.1993 issued by the disciplinary authority could not have arrived at a different finding, when no further opportunity was given to Appellant herein and no reason was recorded therefor. Even in his report dated 21.12.1993 he arrived at the conclusion that the service card was forged only because the purported card had not been issued by RTI (Sec), Ganj Basoda. (Para 13)
       Whether any of the entries contained in the said card was correct or not, was not verified. It could not have been held to have no relevance for arriving at a finding that the same was a forged one.(Para 14)
       The punishment proposed was vague. The Tribunal, therefore, although relied on sub-Rule (3) of Rule 10, in our opinion, arrived at the right conclusion as the matter having not been remitted to the disciplinary authority for a further inquiry under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules, the same was illegal and without jurisdiction. It had not been disputed before us and it would be a mere repetition to state that the entries contained in the service record were correct. The High Court, therefore, may not be correct in arriving at its conclusion in its judgment.(Para 16)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.

2. Appellant was engaged as a casual labour in the year 1978 for a period of four months. He was posted in Ganj Basoda Station. Subsequently, he was appointed at Bina Depot in the year 1981 and served upto 30.6.1982. He was appointed similarly on a few more occasions and was declared as a monthly rated casual labour in 1986. He was issued a service card wherein the details of his service as a casual labour were recorded from time to time. Service Card contained the particulars of the places, number of days and the capacity in which he had worked.

3. Pursuant to or in furtherance of a scheme of regularization in 1989, his name was short-listed. The service card was sent for verification. A purported report dated 31.5.1990 was sent by an Electrical Foreman, Ganj Basoda challenging that it was a fake one; whereupon a major penalty was imposed on him, inter alia, on the charges; firstly, his service card bearing No. 303774 was fake; and secondly, that he secured employment on the basis of the fake service card.

4. A departmental inquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer upon considering the materials placed on records in his report, stated:-

"This employee worked with the Works Inspector (Pul) Beena. His record was said to be at Beena with the IOW (East) but it came to be known from there that the record I.O.W. (M) was with the petitioner. Having gone there the matter was worked in to. There the full record of Works Inspector (Pul) Beena became available. I.O.W. (M) Vidisha gave it in writing that Shri Mathura Prasad S/o Babu Lal as per his service card No. 303774 worked under the Works Inspector (Pul) Beena as canal Khalasi w.e.f. 30.6.81 to 18.7.81 who is mentioned at S.No. 101 in the L.T.I. Register and at that time he was working under the Works Inspector (Pul) Beena K.L. Shridhaaran. NCMR Sheet was also seen. The name of the employee is mentioned in sheet No. 66253 of 18.7.81."

5. The disciplinary authority was, however, not satisfied with the report. It was sent it back to the Inquiry Officer under a demi-official letter dated 2.11.1993 stating:-

"You were nominated as enquiry officer in case of S-5 served to Shri Mathura Prasad, MRCL Khalasi on dated 5.7.90. You have submitted your enquiry report on 15.10.93, while going through enquiry report, it is not clear how you have come on the conclusion and you have given the final findings.

The file is being sent to you back. Kindly submit your report giving clear remarks about every points of charges framed in SF-5.

You are hereby advised to re-submit your enquiry report by enquiring properly to this office immediately."

6. Without any further inquiry and without giving any further opportunity of hearing to Appellant, the Inquiry Officer opined that the said service card was fake, stating:-

"On 4.12.93 the perusal of the record of the matter of the A.R.E. Shri S.C. Upadhyaya also was made and it was given in writing to Shri Mathura Prasad S/o Babu Lal that the service card bearing No. 303774, the copy of which has been given on 3.3.92 has not been issued by the R.T.I. (Sec) Gunjbasoda but according to that your name has been showed against the T.I. of Phulle at S.No. 8 in the L.T.I. Register which has not been verified by any of the FRTI (Sec.) which is at page No. 64 and bears the signatures of the ARE and Mathura Prasad.

From this thing it transpires that the card No. 303774, which has been given to Mathura Prasad S/o Babu Lal, has not been issued by RTI (Sec.) Gunjbasoda. Therefore, this card is forged."

7. Relying on or on the basis of said purported report of the Inquiry Officer, punishment of removal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 26/28.4.1994. The punishment of removal of service of Appellant was confirmed by an order dated 7.7.1994 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Upper Divisional Electrical Engineer, Bhopal.

8. Appellant filed an Original Application before the Central Admin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1038

IMPORTANT POINTIn a service matter where statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in statute or passes order without application of mind, judicial review would be maintainable.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
In a service matter where statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in statute or passes order without application of mind, judicial review would be maintainable.