Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3251 of 2008
PETITIONER:
SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY
RESPONDENT:
PRADESHIYA INDUSTRIAL & INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF U.P. LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/2008
BENCH:
S.B. SINHA & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17418/2006]
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 8.8.2006 passed by the Hight
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby it was directed:
\023So far as the 50% back wages is concerned, it shall be made
available to the Respondent provided the enquiry concludes in his
favour by the competent authority.\024
3. Appellant was dismissed from services of the respondent. He questioned the validity
of the said order of dismissal by filing a writ petition. The said order of termination
was set aside by a learned single Judge of the High Court with a direction to the
respondent for payment of 50% back wages. The period between the dismissal and
reinstatement was also directed to be treated as the period spent on duty, determining
other service benefits. The respondent preferred an intra-Court appeal therefrom.
4. A Division Bench of the High Court, while affirming the finding of the learned
Single Judge that the enquiry proceedings pursuant whereto and in furtherance
whereof an order of dismissal was passed, was violative of the principles of natural
justice, issued the afore-mentioned direction.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon the
decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. B.
Karunakar and Ors. [1993 (4) SCC 727], wherein it was opined:
\023Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer’s report is not
furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings,
the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be
furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it
before coming to the Court/Tribunal and give the employee an
opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of
the
non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the
Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the
report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and
the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with
the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not
mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that
the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present.
The courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the
Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question
and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order
of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of
natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if
the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would
have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set
aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above
procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment,
the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of
the employee with liberty to the authority/ management to proceed
with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and
continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the
report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the
back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the
date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be
left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after
the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final
outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is
directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide
according to law how it will treat the period from the date of
dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the
extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as
a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the
report, should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of
holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and
no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the
correct position in law.\024
6. Karunakar (supra), therefore, is not an authority for the proposition that the High
Court should preempt the exercise of jurisdiction of a Competent Authority. It was
for the Competent Authority to deal with the matter. In the event the appellant is
exonerated from the charges, he may not be found to be disentitled from claiming the
entire back wages. What would be the nature of punishment even if he is found guilty
in the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be a matter of surmises and conjecture.
Furthermore the respondent did not succeed even before the Division Bench of the
High Court as regards the finding of the learned Single Judge that the departmental
proceeding was vitiated in law, as being opposed to the principle of natural justice.
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and it is set
aside, leaving the parties to take recourse to such remedies which are available to
them in law, inter alia, in the light of the observations made by this Court in
Karunakar (supra), if the same is found to be applicable.
8. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.