SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ruma Pal and C.K. Thakker, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 818 of 2005 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19207 of 2001, D/d. 28.1.2005.

Raj Kumar Mehrotra - Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar and others - Respondents

Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, Sections 55-A and 55 - Service Law - Penalty - Punishment - Imposition of - Non-consideration of representation made by the employee and imposition of punishment without specifying reasons - Validity - Punishments of censure in his confidential report of the year 1989-90 with holding of promotion for 7 years from the due date, and taken recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- form his pay were imposed - Rule 55-A requires that the punishment prescribed therein cannot be passed unless the representation made pursuant to the show-cause notice, has been taken into consideration before the order is passed - There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of issues raised by the appellant considered - No reason has been given by the respondent authority - The order cannot be sustained and must be and is set aside - Any deduction on the basis of the impugned order be given back to the appellant within a period of six weeks - If the amount is not paid within six weeks, the respondents liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum.

[Paras 2, 5 and 6]

ORDER

Ruma Pal, J. - Leave granted.

2. The appellant was posted as Executive Engineer at Swaran Rekha Project, Chandil lift main canal between 3-3-1989 to 16-1-1991. On 1-11-1990, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant alleging irregularities in the work carried out by the appellant in connection with the aforesaid project. According to the appellant, which has not been disputed by the respondents, inquiries were made at different levels subsequent to the charge-sheet but nothing implicating the appellant was found. In fact, in 1998, the appellant was promoted. Subsequent to his promotion, a supplementary charge-sheet was issued to the appellant again in respect of allegations relating to the work at the Swaran Rekha Project. The appellant filed an answer to the second charge-sheet. On 22-1-2000, an order was passed by the respondents saying that the charges, as made, had been proved against the appellant. There is no further reason given. On the basis of this "proof" the following punishments were imposed on the appellant, namely,

(a) censure in his confidential report of the year 1989-90,

(b) withholding of promotion for 7 years from the due date, and

(c) token recovery of Rs. 5,00,000 from his pay.

It was also made clear that if the recovery was not effected during the appellant's service period, then it would be recovered from his pension, etc.

3. The appellant preferred an appeal from this order before the departmental authorities. As the departmental authorities were not disposing of the appeal, the appellant filed a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 23-4-2001. The appellant's further appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. Incidentally, the departmental appeal was dismissed in limine after the Division Bench rejected the appellant's further appeal in the writ proceedings.

4. Diverse submissions have been raised by the appellant in support of his contentions that the order of punishment is contrary to the relevant Rules and could not, in any way, be sustained. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents controverts the submissions and says that the applicable Rule was 55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and in terms of that rule, the appellant had been given an opportunity for filing a representation which the appellant had done.

5. Without going into other issues raised, we are of the view that the impugned order of the respondent authority imposing punishment on the appellant cannot be sustained. Even if we assume that Rule 55-A which pertains to minor punishment was applicable and not Rule 55 which relates to major punishments, nevertheless Rule 55-A requires that the punishment prescribed therein cannot be passed unless the representation made pursuant to the show-cause notice, has been taken into consideration before the order is passed. There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of the several issues raised by the appellant in his answer to the show-cause notice were, in fact, considered. No reason has been given by the respondent authority for holding that the charges were proved except for the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained and must be and is set aside.

6. The appellant has since retired from service in December 2001. To a large extent, the issues raised in this appeal have therefore become practically academic. However, according to the appellant, the third punishment, namely, recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 from the appellant's pension has been deducted from the appellant's pension. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that he is not in a position to confirm this. Whatever the position is and whatever has been deducted on the basis of the impugned order, shall be given back to the appellant within a period of six weeks from date. If the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period of six weeks, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed on the aforesaid terms.

Appeal allowed.