1996 JTR(SC) 1952
1997 AIR(SC) 2148 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2002 ; 1997 91 FJR 76 ; 1997 76 FLR 976 ; 1996 Supp JT 262 ; 1998 3 LLJ 168 ; 1997 2 LLN 1004 ; 1996 9 Scale 1 ; 1997 1 SCC 299 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 152 ; 1996 SCR 939 ; 1997 2 SLJ 91 ; 1996 3 SLR 778 ; 1997 KHC 1643 ; 1997 6 Supreme 337
1997(6) Supreme 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Narayan Dattaraya Ramteerthakhar -Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23872 of 1996
(CC - 5912/96)
Decided on 20-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Jasbir Singh Malik and Ms. Kamakshi Singh Mehlwal, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
After a full fledged inquiry is held after issue of charge-sheet, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The service law framework governing the conduct of the public servant in question is reinforced by the principles of administrative accountability and natural justice as interpreted under the relevant statutes. The case examines the legality of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner for misappropriation of public funds, where the inquiry into the misconduct was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The high threshold for interference with such disciplinary measures is emphasized, particularly where there is an inordinate delay in challenging the order and the facts have been diligently ascertained by the administrative tribunal.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement of a proper enquiry before imposing disciplinary action, the non-availability of natural justice principles to vitinate a post-charge-sheet enquiry, and the finality of administrative decisions when supported by evidence. The case also underscores that condonation of delay is permissible only in exceptional circumstances and that a petitioner cannot escape liability by subsequently raising procedural objections.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was found to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.1400/- deducted from employees and failed to deposit the amount until directed to do so in 1985. An enquiry was conducted, the petitioner was held guilty, and he was removed from service. The petitioner challenged the order in the High Court, which permitted withdrawal of the writ petition, and subsequently, the special leave petition was filed before the tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal concluded that there was no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in challenging the disciplinary action and that the evidence clearly supported the finding of misappropriation. The court held that the disciplinary order was valid and that there were no grounds for interference, whether on procedural or merits-based considerations.
Issues:
The primary issues were whether the preliminary enquiry was vitiated by principles of natural justice, whether the delay in challenging the order was condonable, and whether the evidence justified the removal from service.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court determined that the preliminary enquiry did not prejudice the subsequent full enquiry, and the substantial evidence of misappropriation coupled with the unexplained delay in legal challenge warranted the dismissal of the special leave petition.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
(A) The service law framework governing the conduct of the public servant in question is reinforced by the principles of administrative accountability and natural justice as interpreted under the relevant statutes. The case examines the legality of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner for misappropriation of public funds, where the inquiry into the misconduct was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The high threshold for interference with such disciplinary measures is emphasized, particularly where there is an inordinate delay in challenging the order and the facts have been diligently ascertained by the administrative tribunal.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement of a proper enquiry before imposing disciplinary action, the non-availability of natural justice principles to vitinate a post-charge-sheet enquiry, and the finality of administrative decisions when supported by evidence. The case also underscores that condonation of delay is permissible only in exceptional circumstances and that a petitioner cannot escape liability by subsequently raising procedural objections.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was found to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.1400/- deducted from employees and failed to deposit the amount until directed to do so in 1985. An enquiry was conducted, the petitioner was held guilty, and he was removed from service. The petitioner challenged the order in the High Court, which permitted withdrawal of the writ petition, and subsequently, the special leave petition was filed before the tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal concluded that there was no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in challenging the disciplinary action and that the evidence clearly supported the finding of misappropriation. The court held that the disciplinary order was valid and that there were no grounds for interference, whether on procedural or merits-based considerations.
Issues:
The primary issues were whether the preliminary enquiry was vitiated by principles of natural justice, whether the delay in challenging the order was condonable, and whether the evidence justified the removal from service.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court determined that the preliminary enquiry did not prejudice the subsequent full enquiry, and the substantial evidence of misappropriation coupled with the unexplained delay in legal challenge warranted the dismissal of the special leave petition.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. The special leave petition arises from the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, made in OA No. 558 of 1991. The finding recorded by all the authorities is that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.1400/- deducted from the employees and had not deposited until asked to pay the same in 1985. Thereby, the authorities have concluded that the petitioner has committed misconduct. On that finding, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty. The disciplinary authority removed him from service. The Petitioner challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy.
The Tribunal found that there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the disciplinary action. That apart, even on merits also, we do not think that there is any case made out for interference. The finding is that the petitioner has committed misappropriation of the public money and his removal from service is an appropriate order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation and that he was forced to deposit the money. We cannot accept the contention in view of the fact that the petitioner himself had deposited the amount. It is then contended that the preliminary enquiry was not properly conducted and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated by principles of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after the issue of the charge-sheet. The former action would be to find whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance.
4. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
********