2025 Supreme(SC) 125

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Bhupinderpal Singh Gill – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 183 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17120 of 2022]
Decided On : 20-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal by Special Leave – Scope of – Issuing limited notice at stage of admission does not bar Constitutional Court having inherent powers to pass such orders as justice of case before it demands to enlarge scope of a petition/appeal at stage of final hearing.
(2) Imposition of penalty – Public servants to whom Article 311 of Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by High Court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated.
(3) Penalty – Holding appellant guilty of a perceived failure to perform a duty not being charge in respect of which any opportunity of explanation was given, such a finding could not have been taken into consideration by Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty on appellant.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – Scope of – Issuing limited notice at stage of admission does not bar Constitutional Court having inherent powers to pass such orders as justice of case before it demands to enlarge scope of a petition/appeal at stage of final hearing – Any observation that court may choose to make while entertaining petition/appeal by issuing limited notice ought to be regarded as tentative – Such observation cannot limit court’s jurisdiction to consider controversy, as raised, in its entire perspective – Whether or not court would enlarge scope is a question which is largely dependent on facts and circumstances of each case – If court seized of petition/appeal considers that justice of case before it demands enlargement of scope, notwithstanding that a limited notice had been issued earlier, court’s powers are not fettered particularly when enforcement of any Fundamental/Constitutional right is urged by party approaching it. (Para 19)

(B) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 311 – Imposition of penalty – An administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review because disciplinary authority is sole Judge of facts – If there is some legal evidence on which findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution – However, if consideration of materials on record, court is satisfied that there has been violation of principles of natural justice, or that inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing mode of such inquiry, or that ultimate decision of disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to evidence and merits of case, or that conclusion of disciplinary authority is ex-facie arbitrary or capricious, High Court may in exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right – Public servants to whom Article 311 of Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by High Court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated. (Para 33)

(C) Service Law – Penalty – Imposition of – Unauthorised leave – In relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct – Validity of any disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable – No public servant can claim leave as a matter of right – Leave is a matter regulated by rules and such rules need to be duly adhered to by each public servant – There is no record of Civil Surgeon’s refusal to sanction leave being communicated to appellant – Holding appellant guilty of a perceived failure to perform a duty not being charge in respect of which any opportunity of explanation was given, such a finding could not have been taken into consideration by Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty on appellant – Detailed response to inquiry report had been submitted by appellant – Dismissing claims by a single sentence that same are not acceptable, is not part of a fair procedure – This is a substantial ground for which appellant’s grievance seems to be justified – In a rare and appropriate case, to shorten litigation and for exceptional reasons to be recorded in writing, High Court may substitute punishment imposed on delinquent employee – Impugned order of Division Bench set aside together with order of dismissal passed by Single Judge – Order of penalty passed by appellant’s Disciplinary Authority also set aside – Appellant shall be entitled to full pension without any cut – Whatever quantum has been deducted from his pension shall be returned together with 6% interest – Appellant shall be entitled to costs assessed conservatively at Rs.50,000/-. [Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970] (Paras 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 46)

Facts of the case:

Case of prosecution was that appellant had proceeded on leave without same being sanctioned, defying directions of Election Commission and higher authorities, and without participating in Pulse Polio Programme. Broad issue emerging for decision is, whether impugned order of High Court, in which Disciplinary Authority’s order imposing penalty and order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition of appellant have merged, warrants any interference on any of grounds available for judicial review. Besides, Court is also tasked to decide objection that limited notice having been issued at the time of admission of intra-court appeal and appellant’s grievance being addressed, this Court ought not to enlarge scope of appeal.

Findings of Court:

Respondents have not been alerted by bringing to their notice order of Election Commission and, therefore, if they have their own version to place for our consideration, they shall be at liberty to approach us to have the order for costs set aside before expiry of the time limit fixed.

Result : Writ Petition allowed.