Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. HARBHAJAN SINGH GREASY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (5) 403 1996 SCALE (4)195
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides, The
respondent was charged for being absent from duty in the
Emergency of attending on the flood victims between July 18,
1975 and July 21, 1975. He was further charged for other
derelictions of duty. The details are not necessary. Suffice
it to state that enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report that respondent No.1 had
admitted that he was having a private practice at Moga
during the period of his suspension in spite of the
directions issued by the Government in the suspension order
to remain at Head-quarter. Accordingly, the disciplinary
authority removed him from service which came to be
challenged in the High Court. The learned single Judge
allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement with
consequential benefits On appeal the Division Bench
confirmed the same in the impugned order dated November 17,
1993 in L.P.A. No.398/92. Thus, this appeal by special
leave .
It is seen that the Enquiry Officer’s report is based
on the alleged admission made by the respondent. But,
unfortunately, the Enquiry Officer has not taken his
admission in writing . Subsequently, the respondent has
denied having made any admission . As against the denial of
the delinquent, we have only the statement of the Enquiry
Officer which is not supported by any statement in writing
taken from the respondent. Under those circumstances, High
Court may be justified in setting aside the order of
dismissal. It is now well settled law that when the enquiry
was found to be faulty, it could not be proper to direct
reinstatement with consequential benefits. Matter requires
to be remitted to the disciplinary authority to follow the
procedure from the stage at which the fault was pointed out
and to take action according to law. Pending enquiry the
delinquent must be deemed to be under suspension. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
consequential benefits would depend upon the result of the
enquiry and order passed thereon. The High Court had
committed illegality in omitting to give the said direction.
Since the respondent had retired from service, now no useful
purpose will be served in directing to conduct enquiry
afresh. However, the respondent is not entitled to the back
wages as he voided responsibility as a Doctor to treat on
flood victims and that was cause for the suspension
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Disallowance of the back wages would not stand in the way of
computation of the pensionary benefits as if he had
continued in service.