Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 82
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
D. Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). OF 2024(Arising from SLP(Civil)No(s).15023/2022)
Decided on : 23-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs. V Mohana, Sr. Adv., Mr. Karthik Sundar, Adv., Ms. Bhavya Pandey, Adv., Ms. Sneha Botwe, Adv., Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR, Mrs. N C Kavitha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv., Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv., Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, Adv., Mr. Suyash Pandey, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
In facts of a given case, disciplinary proceeding could continue simultaneously with criminal inquiry – There is no legal bar on running such parallel proceedings though in certain situations, Supreme Court has not permitted continuance of dual proceedings.
Headnote:
Service Law – Punishment – Compulsory retirement from service – Allegation against appellant is of misrepresenting his caste status – Proceeding was initiated against him for posing as a candidate from scheduled Caste category at the time of obtaining appointment to post of Trainee Fitter (Tradesman/C) in BARC – It is specifically alleged that he had availed benefit of age relaxation at that point of time – In impugned judgment, High Court assumed role of a disciplinary authority and imposed punishment also – There was no exercise for determination of caste status claim of appellant at the time of his appointment to service – It would be for disciplinary authority to determine that question – In facts of a given case, disciplinary proceeding could continue simultaneously with criminal inquiry – There is no legal bar on running such parallel proceedings though in certain situations, Supreme Court has not permitted continuance of dual proceedings – Impugned judgment and order set aside and authorities directed to complete disciplinary proceeding within a period of six months – Order of compulsory retirement shall stand revoked. (Paras 5, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, who was working with Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), is aggrieved by Judgment and order of High Court passed on 28.04.2022 in Writ Petition No.54 of 2020 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement upon him.
Findings of Court:
Appellant shall be entitled to such benefits as would be permissible under the law. These benefits shall be released to him expeditiously, after adjusting any monetary benefit which may have been given to him.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. Rejoinder affidavit of the appellant is not on record.
3. Ms. Mohana, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, however, submits that she won’t rely on the rejoinder affidavit and wants to proceed with the hearing of this matter on the basis of available pleadings.
4. The appellant, who was working with Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court passed on 28.04.2022 in Writ Petition No.54 of 2020 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon him. The operative part of the order of the High Court reads:-
“17. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The Applicant/1st Respondent is imposed with the punishment of Compulsory Retirement, which will take effect from today. The Applicant/1st Respondent is entitled to only 40% of the pensionary benefits. Though an order of Compulsory Retirement is passed, it cannot be construed as a punishment, as he will be enjoying the benefit of pension to which he is not at all entitled to. This Court ought not to have granted even this relief to the Applicant, had the Department approached the Court well within time. It is made clear that the Applicant/1st Respondent is not eligible for any other terminal benefits, such as gratuity, DCRG and the like, excluding the PF contribution, if any made by the Applicant. The Government should also think of amending the Rules to enable the Department to proceed against the employee even after retirement/superannuation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
5. The allegation against the appellant is of misrepresenting his caste status. Proceeding was initiated against him for posing as a candidate from the scheduled Caste category at the time of obtaining appointment to the post of Trainee Fitter (Tradesman/C) in BARC. It is specifically alleged that he had availed the benefit of age relaxation at that point of time, i.e. at the time of his appointment. It is the respondent’s case that he belongs to “Thuluva Vellalar”, which is listed as a Backward community. We are not going into that question in this appeal as we do not find any effective determination of the caste status of the appellant in any of the proceedings which were taken against him till the decision of the High Court was rendered. It appears that the authorities initiated disciplinary proceeding against him on 06.05.2013. Simultaneously, FIR No.343/2012 dated 21.10.2012 was also registered against him at the instance of an individual with Kalpakkam Police Station, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The appellant applied before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, questioning the legality of continuance of the disciplinary proceeding during pendency of the criminal action. The Tribunal, by its judgment delivered on 06.09.2013, inter alia, held:-
“…..In our opinion, we are convinced that the disciplinary proceedings can be kept in abeyance till a finality is reached in the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed and there will be a direction to the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of the charge memo dated – 06.05.2013 as against the applicant in abeyance till the criminal case in Crime No.343/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Thirukkazhukundram is finally decided. However, there will be no order as to costs.”
7. The authorities challenged the decision of the Tribunal after seven years, in the year 2020, and approached the High Court of judicature at Madras for invalidating the Tribunal’s decision. The High Court entertained the aforesaid writ petition in spite of the issue of delay being raised by the appellant and ultimately disposed of the same with the observations and directions which we have quoted above. It has been argued by Ms.Mohana, learned
