Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points extracted with their corresponding references: Case Details: The case is M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8267 of 2004, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 5-4-2006. The subject matter is Disciplinary Proceedings regarding Misconduct under Service Law. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] Facts: The Appellant, a Junior Engineer, was charged in 1975 (six years after handing over charge) with failing to maintain an ACE-8 Register and failing to supervise the working of a line and utilization of copper wire. The disciplinary proceedings lasted seven years. (!) (!) Charges Framed: The specific charges were: (i) failure to maintain ACE-8 Register showing acquisition/utilization of 4000 Kgs of copper wire; (ii) failure to supervise the working of the line and utilization of copper wire; (iii) showing misleading entries on transportation bills. (!) (!) Findings of Lower Authorities: The Enquiry Officer found the first two charges proved. The Appellate Authority held that the failure to maintain the ACE-8 Register and failure to supervise amounted to misutilization of the copper wire. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's application, and the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. (!) (!) (!) Supreme Court's Analysis of Charges: The Court held that the Appellant was not charged with theft or misappropriation of the 4000 kgs of copper wire. The charges only related to non-maintenance of the register and non-supervision. Serious charges like misappropriation require specific framing which was absent. (!) (!) Quasi-Judicial Function: The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function and must prove charges on a preponderance of probability. He cannot take irrelevant facts, shift the burden of proof, or enquire into allegations not charged. The evidence drawn was not commensurate with the vague charges framed. (!) Delay and Prejudice: The disciplinary proceedings were initiated six years after the alleged act and continued for seven years, causing significant prejudice to the delinquent officer. The Court cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh regarding the unfairness of such delays. (!) (!) Outcome: The appeal was allowed. The Court directed the Appellant to be reinstated in service (if not superannuated) and paid 50% of back wages, noting that remitting the matter would cause undue delay given the age of the charges (1969-70). (!) (!)

M. V. Bijlani vs Union of India - 2006 Supreme(SC) 327

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 327

S.B.SINHA, P.P.NAOLEKAR
M. V. Bijlani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points extracted with their corresponding references:

Case Details: The case is M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8267 of 2004, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 5-4-2006. The subject matter is Disciplinary Proceedings regarding Misconduct under Service Law. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]
Facts: The Appellant, a Junior Engineer, was charged in 1975 (six years after handing over charge) with failing to maintain an ACE-8 Register and failing to supervise the working of a line and utilization of copper wire. The disciplinary proceedings lasted seven years. (!) (!)
Charges Framed: The specific charges were: (i) failure to maintain ACE-8 Register showing acquisition/utilization of 4000 Kgs of copper wire; (ii) failure to supervise the working of the line and utilization of copper wire; (iii) showing misleading entries on transportation bills. (!) (!)
Findings of Lower Authorities: The Enquiry Officer found the first two charges proved. The Appellate Authority held that the failure to maintain the ACE-8 Register and failure to supervise amounted to misutilization of the copper wire. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's application, and the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. (!) (!) (!)
Supreme Court's Analysis of Charges: The Court held that the Appellant was not charged with theft or misappropriation of the 4000 kgs of copper wire. The charges only related to non-maintenance of the register and non-supervision. Serious charges like misappropriation require specific framing which was absent. (!) (!)
Quasi-Judicial Function: The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function and must prove charges on a preponderance of probability. He cannot take irrelevant facts, shift the burden of proof, or enquire into allegations not charged. The evidence drawn was not commensurate with the vague charges framed. (!)
Delay and Prejudice: The disciplinary proceedings were initiated six years after the alleged act and continued for seven years, causing significant prejudice to the delinquent officer. The Court cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh regarding the unfairness of such delays. (!) (!)
Outcome: The appeal was allowed. The Court directed the Appellant to be reinstated in service (if not superannuated) and paid 50% of back wages, noting that remitting the matter would cause undue delay given the age of the charges (1969-70). (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—The Appellant was working as a Junior Engineer at Jagadalpur in the year 1969-1970. He allegedly failed and/or neglected to maintain a register known as ACE-8 Register. After he had handed over charge to his successor Shri K.C. Sariya, on or about 11.04.1975, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the following charges :

“(i) he had failed to maintain ACE-8 Register showing acquisition and utilisation of 4000 Kgs. of telegraph copper wire received from SDOT. Raipur, through Sub-Inspector, Kashiram and Badul Quadir on 22.10.1969, 30.10.1969 and 2.12.1969 for utilisation on Geedam-Bairagarh truck line against estimate No. 2162 duly approved.

(ii) that he had failed to supervise the working of the line and utilisation of copper wire while the rules require the personnel supervision and accountability of the said wire; and

(iii) that he also showed misleading entries on the bills of transportation for transportation of the material.”

2. The disciplinary proceedings remained pending for a period of seven years. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer only in the year 1982. In the disciplinary proceeding, the first two charges were held to have be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

Gopi Ram Goyal VS State of Rajasthan - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2311: Bijlani vs. Union of India and others (2006) 5 SCC 88.

Explanation: Multiple references in the list explicitly state that "Bijlani (supra) is not an authority" and that the case was decided on "peculiar facts," indicating it has been criticized or disapproved of in subsequent rulings. Several entries emphasize that the decision is not to be treated as binding or precedent, which suggests it has been effectively overruled or discredited as good law.

Xavier Dhanaraj VS The Secretary to Government Public Works Department Government of Tamil Nadu & Others - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 24: Union of India & Others (2006 (5) SCC 88). That case was decided on its peculiar facts... Bijlani (Supra), therefore, is not an authority and, in fact, as would appear from the decision...

VIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA VS UNION OF INDIA - 2008 0 Supreme(All) 1747: Bijlani v. Union of India and others, AIR 2006 SC 3475 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919.

Anil Soni VS State of M. P. - 2008 0 Supreme(MP) 152: Union of India (2006)5 SCC 88 and therefore the disciplinary authority cannot review, recall or reopen...

Lakshmi VS Union of India rep. by the Secretary to Govt. of India Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance & Others - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 1141: Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others [2006 [5] SCC 88]. That case was decided on its peculiar facts...

GIRISH CHANDRA SINGHAL VS VIDUR GRAMIN BANK, BIJNOR - 2009 0 Supreme(All) 255: Bijlani v. ... (2) Union of India and another v. ... (1990) 4 SCC 594. (Repeated references to the case in different contexts but with similar language indicating disapproval)

Hari Narain Gupta VS State - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1190: Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors.- (2006) 5 SCC 88. ... the case is repeatedly cited with the note that it was decided on peculiar facts and is not a binding precedent.

SITA RAM VERMA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(All) 700: Supreme Court in Union of India v. ... Bijlani v. ... (2006) 5 SCC 88, the misconduct was of the year 1969-1970 and the charge-sheet was delayed, which has been criticized in subsequent cases.

M. Kamaraj VS Principal Secretary to Government, Highways & Minor ports (HL1) Department - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 1254: Union of India and others, 2006(5) SCC 88, considered an identical case in which disciplinary proceedings... The case is repeatedly cited with the indication that it is not an authority.

Anuj Singh VS U. O. I. through Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 929: Bijlani vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 and Radhey Kant Khare vs. U.P. ... The case is again noted as not binding, emphasizing the "peculiar facts" and disapproval.

Vishnu Swaroop Sharma VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 162: Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919 : AIR 2006 SC 3475. The case is repeatedly cited with the note that it is not to be treated as a binding authority.

[Followed / Cited as Authority]:

[Reaffirmed / Consistent Treatment]:

Multiple references (e.g., Hari Narain Gupta VS State - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1190, V. K. Gaur VS State of Rajasthan - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 900, Laxmi Lal Maheshwari VS State - 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 338, D. V. Singh VS Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 225, , Ajay Kumar Sharda VS High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur - 2020 0 Supreme(Raj) 245, Ajit Singh VS State - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 536, Ramanuj Sharma (deceased) through his LRs : Smt. Ritu Sharma, Wife Of Shri Rajiv Sharma VS State of Rajasthan through it’s Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 853) treat the case as a valid precedent, often citing it for principles regarding disciplinary proceedings, judicial review, or delay, indicating that the case's legal principles are still regarded as good law in those contexts.

[Clarifications and Limitations]:

[Judicial Principles / General Legal Doctrine]:

Many references (e.g., NISHITH RANJAN TIWARI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2745, SHAYAMA CHARAN TRIPATHI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 15, NANHU SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 735, NANHU SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 735, SITA RAM VERMA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(All) 700, State of U. P. Throu. Prin. Secy. Kar Evam Nibandhan Lko. VS Deepak Kumar - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2552, Shaitan Singh VS U. O. I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Water Resources River Dev. - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 2254, Ram Gopal Rastogi VS State of U. P. - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 2413, , ) discuss general principles of disciplinary law, judicial review, or evidence, citing the case in support of established legal doctrines, indicating that the case's principles are incorporated into the broader legal framework.

Prabhakar D. Marathe VS State of Gujarat - 2007 0 Supreme(Guj) 875: Bijlani v. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88. The treatment pattern here is not explicitly clear from the list, but multiple references suggest it is still considered relevant, though possibly limited in scope.

R. N. BHAT VS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 348: The case is mentioned as a precedent in a context of false claims, but treatment (overruled or followed) is not explicitly stated.

Kishan Pal Singh VS Union of India - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 253: The case is cited in relation to principles of judicial review, but the treatment status (overruled or good law) remains ambiguous.

Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corp. Ltd. VS Azad Singh - 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 1910: The case is referenced in the context of legal principles but without clear indication of its current status.

Arun Kumar Singh VS State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand - 2016 0 Supreme(Jhk) 288: The case is cited for principles of delay and prejudice, but treatment is not explicitly stated.

Baliram Prasad VS State of Jharkhand - 2015 0 Supreme(Jhk) 900: Similar to above, treatment is unclear.

P. Chinnadurai VS Inspector General of Registration - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 408: The case is cited in a context that suggests ongoing relevance, but explicit treatment is not clear.

SITA RAM VERMA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(All) 700: Mentioned as part of a series of cases, treatment status is ambiguous.

Shaitan Singh VS U. O. I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Water Resources River Dev. - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 2254: Cited with no explicit indication whether it has been overruled or followed.

Hradesh Kumar VS Union of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1015: Cited as a recent case, but treatment status is not explicitly clarified.

Samuel Dungdung VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 356: Cited in context of principles, but treatment status is unclear.

Shanti Devi VS State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Home - 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1220: Similar to above.

Renu Yadav VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1471: Cited in relation to principles, but treatment status is ambiguous.

Vishnu Swaroop Sharma VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 162: Cited in relation to judicial review, but treatment status is not explicit.

[02000026934], [02000026027], [02000026132], [02000030307], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202], [02000034063], [02000032723], [02000033160], [02000033881], [02000033438], [02000030218], [02000031618], [02000032202

2006 Supreme(SC) 327

S.B.SINHA, P.P.NAOLEKARM. V. Bijlani – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Judicial Analysis

S.B.SINHA, P.P.NAOLEKAR
M. V. Bijlani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent