State
of Punjab & Ors Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy [1996] INSC 535 (12 April
1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (5) 403 1996 SCALE (4)195
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
