Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 422 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Tej Pal Singh
RESPONDENT:
Union of India & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2007
BENCH:
Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)NO.44/2004)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
Leave granted.
Heard both sides. The appellant Tej Pal Singh is also
present in Court. In this matter, a penalty of removal from
service was imposed on the appellant. Against the removal
order, the appellant filed an appeal, which was dismissed.
Later he challenged the said order before the Tribunal and a
further review was also filed. The Tribunal and the Reviewing
Authority have also dismissed the respective petitions.
Thereupon, he moved a writ petition invoking jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High
Court also, for the reasons set out at page 4 & 5 of its order,
dismissed the writ petition. We have perused the order passed
by the High Court and other connected records.
When the matter came up for hearing on 18.10.2006,
this Court passed the following order:
"Prima facie, we are of the view that the petitioner
had not been afforded proper opportunity to defend
himself inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had refused
to summon the witnesses cited by the workman.
The dispute has been going on for the last 15 years.
It would not be in the interest of justice to start the
proceedings all over again. We have suggested to
the counsel for the parties to settle the dispute for
which they seek time.
Adjourned by four weeks."
Again the matter was listed before this Bench on
15.11.2006, when the court passed the following order:
"A letter is circulated by Mr. Praveen Jain,
Advocate for the petitioner that the settlement
between the parties is likely to taken some more
time and hence he requested that the matter
may be adjourned by six weeks. Learned ASG
appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of
India also made the similar request as,
according to him, the competent authority who
has to approve the terms of settlement is not
available now.
The matter is adjourned by four weeks
for reporting settlement."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Today, the matter is listed before us for reporting
settlement.
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, on
instruction from the respondent, submitted that even though
the appellant has lost before almost all the forums, the
respondents, taking a lineant view of the matter and also as per
the directions of this Court, have considered the matter on
sympathetic ground and are ready and willing to pay the last
drawn salary of Rs.1672/- p.m. for the last ten years. The total
amount comes to Rs.2,00,640/-. In our opinion, the said sum of
Rs.2,00,640/- is inadequate.
We, therefore, direct the respondents herein and in
particular respondent no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs only) in full quit of all the claims by the
appellant. We make it clear that the appellant shall not be
entitled to any other payment from the respondents. The
respondents are directed to pay the said sum of Rs.3 lakhs
within six weeks from today, failing which the said amount
shall carry interest at 18% till the date of payment. The said
sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall be paid by way of Demand Draft
payable at Kapurthala and drawn in the name of the appellant
herein, namely, Tej Pal Singh. The appellant is directed to
collect the Demand Draft from the respondent-in-person.
The appeal is disposed off in the above terms. No
costs.