The necessity of presenting material to support the dispensation of a regular departmental enquiry as required under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

S.B. Sinha, J.

The services of the respondent herein were terminated on 17-8-1987 without initiating any regular disciplinary proceedings. He filed a suit questioning the said order of termination. The said suit has been decreed. The appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment refused to entertain the second appeal filed by the second accused herein.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia contended that the suit was barred by limitation. Such a contention has admittedly not been raised before the High Court. No such plea has also been taken in the special leave petition. We, therefore, cannot permit the appellant to raise the said contention for the first time before this Court.

3. Learned counsel then contended that no departmental enquiry could be held against the respondent in view of his involvement with terrorists. In the suit, the State did not place any material to establish that any case was made out for dispensation of a regular departmental enquiry as required under clause (2) to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The question is now covered by a recent decision of this Court in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(13) SCC 581 : 2008(2) SCC (L&S) 140 wherein this Court has opined that if no material is brought to the notice of the Court on the date of passing of the impugned order in support of the allegations contained therein as to why it was impractical to hold a regular disciplinary proceeding, the order of termination would not be sustainable.

4. For the reasons aforementioned we are of the opinion that no case has been made out to interfere with the order of the High Court.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.