Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Union of India and others – Appellants
Versus
P. Gunasekaran – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2014
Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23631 of 2008
Decided On: 19-11-2014
AIR 1963 SC 1723; (1975) 2 SCC 557; (1977) 2 SCC 491; (2014) 4 SCC 108 – Relied upon
(b) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding – Punishment – Disciplinary authority appreciating enquiry report and accepting it – Imposing punishment of compulsory retirement – Tribunal endorsing the same – Not open to High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to different conclusion – Constitution of India – Article 226/227. (Para 18)
(c) Service law – Punishment – Disciplinary authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement by well reasoned order and because delinquent lacked integrity – CAT concurring – Not open to High Court to go into proportionality of the same. (Para 19)
(1995) 6 SCC 749; (1997) 7 SCC 463; (2001) 2 SCC 386; (2007) 4 SCC 669; (2009) 15 SCC 620; (2014) 4 SCC 108 – Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India – Article 226/227 – In first round of litigation charge no. 1 held to be proved by CAT and affirmed by High Court – Attaining finality – In second round High Court re-opening the issue, re-appreciating evidence in enquiry and holding punishment not proper – Directing reinstatement with back wages – Not permissible. (Para 21 to 23)
(e) Service law – Punishment – Dismissal – Set aside and on remand modified to compulsory retirement – Remand being only on point of punishment – Modified punishment will relate to date of original punishment of dismissal – Compulsory retirement ordered fronm date of dismissal – No infirmity. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Respondent, while working as Deputy Office Superintendent, Central Excise Third Division, Coimbatore was arrested by Police in a criminal case involving cheating and extortion of money. The police registered a criminal case under Sections 143, 319 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent. Separate departmental proceedings were also initiated against him under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
In the disciplinary inquiry, all the charges were proved and, on due procedure, the respondent was dismissed from service.
This order of dismissal was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in criminal appeal, the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore acquitted the respondent.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, took the view that the respondent having been acquitted on identical set of charges, he could not be proceeded against in respect of second and third articles of charge in the disciplinary proceedings. However in case of charge no. 1 which was not part of criminal proceeding, the Tribunal remanded the matter for adequate punishment.
His punishment was modified from dismissal to compulsory retirement.
OA against the order of compulsory retirement was dismissed by the Tribunal.
The High Court set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, interfered with even the finding of the enquiry officer, set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement with backwages and all service benefits.
Finding of the Court;
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Yes, the provided legal document confirms that the High Court, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, cannot:
Key supporting principles from the document:
The High Court cannot act as a second court of appeal or appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings, including by re-appreciating evidence before the enquiry officer [1000546870012]. Its jurisdiction is limited to checking procedural aspects, such as whether the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed prescribed procedure, adhered to natural justice, or involved extraneous considerations, arbitrariness, or no evidence at all (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Once findings are based on some legal evidence and the enquiry is proper, the High Court shall not interfere with conclusions, assess evidence reliability, or review factual errors (!) (!) (!) . In this case, the finding on Charge No. I attained finality after acceptance by the disciplinary authority, Tribunal, and High Court in prior litigation, barring re-opening [1000546870020][1000546870021][1000546870022].
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. Respondent, while working as Deputy Office Superintendent, Central Excise Third Division, Coimbatore was arrested by Police in a criminal case involving cheating and extortion of money. The police registered a criminal case under Sections 143, 319 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) against the respondent. Separate departmental proceedings were also initiated against him under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
3. Following are the three articles of charge:
“ARTICLE-I
That the said Shri P. Gunasekaran, Deputy Office Superintendent (Level-II) (under suspension of Central Excise, Headquarters Office, Coimbatore while working in the Valuation Cell, Hqrs. Office, Coimbatore came to the office on 23.11.1992, in the morning and signed the attendance register, in token of having come to the office and left office without permission and came to the office the next day, i.e., on the morning of 24.11.1992, and affixed his initials in the departure column against the dated 23.11.1992 and willfully falsified the official register. He has thereby committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II
That the said Shri P. Gunasekaran, being a ministerial Officer impersonated himself as a Central Excise Executive Officer and on 23.11.1992 about 2.30 p.m. unauthorizedlyconducted passenger checks in a public transport bus at Ukkadam Bus Stand, by usurping the powers of Executive Officer and thereby committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-III
That the said Shri P. Gunasekaran, on 23.11.1992 at about 2.30 P.M., abused his position unauthorisedly conducted passenger check, by usurping the powers of Executive Officer, threatened a passenger bound for Kerala and thereby committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
4. In the disciplinary inquiry, all the charges were proved and, on due procedure, the respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 10.06.1997. The said order of dismissal dated 10.06.1997 was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 805 of 1997. During the pendency of the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in criminal appeal, the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore acquitted the respondent.
5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 27.10.1999, took the view that the respondent having been acquitted on identical set of charges, he could not be proceeded against in respect of second and third articles of charge in the disciplinary proceedings. However, on the first Charge, the Tribunal held as follows:
“11. … There is one another charge on which, the applicant has been punished by the disciplinary authority, i.e., Article I which has been extracted above. It cannot be said this charge is also part of the criminal prosecution. On the evidence adduced, the inquiring authority has come to the conclusion that Article I has been proved taking note of the applicant’s letter dated 11.11.1992 addressed to the Collector of Central Excise when he was kept under remand. This finding given by the enquiry officer has been accepted by the disciplinary authority. Considering all the three charges as proved, the order of dismissal has been passed, but since we have arrived
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
