Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NIHAL SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.K.GAMKHAR (DEAD) THROUGH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/07/1998
BENCH:
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. SRINIVASAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G E M E N T
SRINIVASAN, J.
The appellant was working as L.D.C and officiating
U.D.C. in Land & Development office, Delhi Administration.
He was placed under suspension w.e.f 2.3.1959 because
disciplinary enquiry was contemplated. The Land &
Development office was transferred to the Central Government
and put under the Ministry of works, Housing and supply n
October, 1959. The case of the appellant was reviewed and
the order of suspension was revoked w.e.f 24.2.1960. On
6.4.73, the Land & Development officer issued an order
whereby the appellant was deemed to have been promoted as
Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 250-15-400 W.E.F
25.2.1959. The positioned was reviewed by the Ministry and
it directed cancellation of the order dated 6.4.73 as the
seniority of the appellant was still under consideration.
Consequently an order was passed on 27.10.73 cancelling the
earlier orders. On 24.8.76 an order was passed against the
appellant as a result of a departmental enquiry holding that
he was guilty of gross indiscipline and misconduct and
awarding punishment of withholding two increments with
cumulative effect. A third order was passed on 5.10.76
compulsority retiring the appellant from service. A fourth
order was passed on 7.12.76 restricting his pay for the
period of suspension to the amount of subsistence allowance.
2. The appellant challenged the said High Court of Delhi
in C.W.187/77.malafides on the part of the officer who
passed the order dated 27.10.73.
3. The main reasons given by the Division Bench are that
the appellant was not eligible for promotion too the post of
Superintendent in 1959 as he was only a L.D.C. and
officiating as U.D.C. and that there was no record show the
existence of any vacancy in the post of Superintendent. The
Appellate Bench could also find any material to agree with
the Single Judge on the question of malafides on the part of
the officer who passed the order dated 27.10.73.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through
the order of the learned single Judge and submitted that the
findings arrived at by him should have been accepted by the
Division Bench. We have perused the records placed before
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
us. We do not find any material to support the contentions
of the appellants counsel. The reasoning adopted by the
Letters Patent Bench is well founded and there is no
justification to interfere with the same. We find no merit
in the appeal. It is hereby dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.