In a recent landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, significant relief has been granted in the case concerning the reinstatement of service and consequential benefits for the parties involved. The appellant, who has been seeking justice in the legal battle, has finally received a favorable ruling from the highest judicial authority in the country. The court’s decision to remit the case to the disciplinary authority for a fresh order showcases the commitment to upholding justice and fairness in legal proceedings.
Facts
- The appellant was charged with deserting his family and living separately with another woman without judicial separation.
- An enquiry report found the appellant guilty of desertion but not of living with another woman.
- Appellant was dismissed from service based on the enquiry report and subsequent review petition dismissal.
- The appellant filed an O.A. before the Tribunal which quashed the dismissal order based on lack of proof of living with another woman.
- High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and Review Petition against the Tribunal’s order.
- The penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the appellant for delay in filing the OA.
- Appellant’s suspension, promotions, and eventual dismissal from service were outlined in the background.
- Appellant reinstated into service on 09.04.2003.
- Minor penalty imposed on 23.04.2004 – stoppage of one increment of pay for one year, without cumulative effect.
- Tribunal rejected condonation of delay application on 10.12.2020.
- Observation of Tribunal: Delay of more than one year, applicant aware of proceedings.
Also Read: Restoration of Trial Court Judgment in the Case of O.S. No.226 of 1998
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court should not have dealt with the case on its merits without affording an opportunity to the appellant, especially after stating that the writ petition was dismissed due to an alleged unexplained delay.
- The counsel contended that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay of 425 days in filing O.A. No. 2066 of 2020, as the delay was due to the mistake of the counsel who withdrew the earlier O.A. No. 3034 of 2018 without the appellant’s consent.
- Reference was made to legal precedents to support the argument that a party should not suffer due to errors or conduct of their counsel.
- It was argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the appellant, especially considering that the complainant had withdrawn the complaint and did not depose before the inquiry.
- The counsel further argued that the term ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction by the courts, and in this case, the delay in filing the fresh O.A. was not due to any laxity on the part of the appellant.
- Shri N. Visakamurthy, representing the respondents, supports the impugned orders.
- The representations submitted by the appellant were examined by the Ministry and rejected through an OM dated 20/22-11-2016.
- The rejection of the representations was challenged in O.A. No.3034 of 2018, which was unconditionally withdrawn by the appellant.
- According to the respondents, no fault can be attributed to them due to the appellant’s actions.
- The appellant’s actions in withdrawing the challenge to the rejection of representations absolve the respondents of any blame.
Also Read: Anwar Ahmad vs State of U.P.: Interpretation of ‘Forthwith’ in Seizure Reporting Obligations
Analysis
- The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition due to the minor penalty imposed by confirming the order before the Tribunal on merits.
- Exception allowed for interference is when the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged dereliction of duty.
- A communication dated 09.11.2017 intimated the appellant about the disposal of representations and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings based on a complaint by the appellant’s wife.
- The delay in filing the O.A. No.2066 of 2020 was challenged by the appellant in Delhi High Court after the dismissal on grounds of delay.
- The appellant claimed that he was not aware of the withdrawal of his application before the Tribunal until August 2019, leading to the filing of O.A. No.2066 of 2020 for condonation of delay.
- The O.A. No.1579 of 2017 sought direction for consideration of representation was disposed of by the Tribunal on 08.05.2017.
- The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No.2066 of 2020 on the ground of delay, prompting the appellant to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the dismissal.
- In the background, it was noted that the wife of the appellant had withdrawn her complaint against him, although the Inquiry Officer still proceeded with the inquiry.
- The delay of 425 days in filing a fresh O.A. was explained by the appellant stating that there was no intimation of withdrawal of the earlier OA by his counsel.
- The High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal based on the minor penalty imposed on the appellant, ignoring the earlier ruling that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged act.
- The age of the appellant being 68 years, lack of evidence proving the appellant guilty, and the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant led to the setting aside of the findings of the enquiry officer.
- There cannot be a judicial review of the nature of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
- The impugned orders were set aside, and the appellant is entitled to consequential benefits, with directions for the respondents to take steps within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order.
Also Read: Legal Analysis: Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand – Quashing of Proceedings
Decision
- The impugned order is quashed.
- The case is remitted to the disciplinary authority for a fresh order.
- No opinion is given on other contentions of the applicant.
- The O.A. is disposed of.
Case Title: MOOL CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2024 INSC 577)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008435-008436 – 2024
