Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KASHMIR SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/09/1996
BENCH:
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The respondent was a driver in the service of the
Punjab Roadways, Jallandhar. There was an accident to the
bus he was driving on 2.7.86. Number of passengers were
injured and the bus damaged. A F.I.R. WAS issued against the
respondent under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. and certain
other provisions. He was also suspended pending inquiry. A
memo of charges was issued to him proposing to hold a
disciplinary inquiry on the charges of causing loss to the
Corporation by driving the bus rashly and negligently. An
Inquiry Officer, Shri R.S. Sharma, was appointed. White the
proceedings were pending before the Inquiry Officer, the
Criminal Court acquitted the respondent under its judgment
and order dated 19.10.1988. After perusing the judgment of
the Criminal Court, a fresh disciplinary inquiry was ordered
against the respondent for which purpose a different Inquiry
Officer was appointed. The disciplinary inquiry was
accordingly held and on the basis of the report of the
Inquiry Officer the respondent was found guilty of the
charges and dismissed from service.
The respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Sub-
Judge, Jallandhar for a declaration that the order of
dismissal was void and illegal and for consequential
benefits. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit
but in appeal the learned District Judge upheld the
respondent’s claim. The order of dismissal was declared
illegal and the respondent was held entitled to all the
benefits flowing from such declaration. The second appeal
preferred by the Corporation and the State of Punjab was
dismissed in limine by the High Court.
The main ground upon which the learned District Judge
has decreed the respondent’s suit is that inasmuch as the
first Inquiry Officer (Shri R.S.Sharma) had submitted his
report which report was also acted upon, no second
disciplinary inquiry could have been ordered, particularly
after acquittal by the Criminal Court. We called upon the
learned counsel for the respondent before us to show us the
evidence or the material on the basis of which the Appellate
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Court has held that the first Inquiry Officer had submitted
his report after the conclusion of the inquiry and that it
was also acted upon. We also asked the learned counsel to
clarify that do the words "the inquiry report of Shri
R.S.Sharma has been acted upon under Rule 9.1" in the
Judgment of the learned District Judge, mean. The learned
counsel for the respondent is unable to point out any
evidence or explain the said observation. Indeed in the
written submissions filed by the learned counsel, Shri
U.S.Prasad, it is stated "in all fairness I must point out
to your Lordships that Inquiry Report and order imposing the
punishment is not available". The basis of the judgment of
the first Appellate Court thus becomes untenable.
We are, however, not inclined to dispose of the matter
finally at this stage. We have not been shown the copy of
the judgment and order of the Criminal Court acquitting the
respondent. We have also not been shown the proceedings
ordering the fresh inquiry or the reasons in which the fresh
disciplinary inquiry was ordered, after the acquittal of the
Criminal Court. These matters may require further
examination. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside
the judgment of the High Court to request the High Court to
admit the second appeal preferred by the appellants’ and
dispose it of on merits in accordance with law.