Singh Vs. K.K.Gamkhar & Ors  INSC 368 (29 July 1998)
V. Manohar, M. Srinivasan Srinivasan, J.
J U D
G E M E N T
appellant was working as L.D.C and officiating U.D.C. in Land & Development
office, Delhi Administration.
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 The case of the appellant was reviewed and the order of suspension was
revoked w.e.f 24.2.1960.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.