Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a service law dispute involving a Jeep Driver in the Public Works Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. The respondent had applied for leave from 1.3.1984 to 31.3.1988 to look after his ailing mother and family properties. He was granted earned leave until 31.3.1984 and leave on loss of pay from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1988. After the expiry of leave, the respondent did not rejoin duty. On 12.11.1988, he was asked to join duty; he reported on 27.11.1988 and was admitted to duty on 6.12.1988. Meanwhile, on 2.12.1988, the Executive Engineer passed an order stating that the respondent must be deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 1.4.1984. The respondent challenged that order before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.282 of 1989. The Tribunal quashed the resignation order on the ground that it was passed without holding a regular enquiry as required by rules and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and directed reinstatement. Following reinstatement, the appellants issued a charge memo and suspended the respondent pending enquiry. A regular disciplinary enquiry was held on the charge that the respondent had left the country for foreign employment without permission of the department. The enquiry officer held the charge established. After considering the enquiry report and the respondent's explanation, the Superintending Engineer imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 14.10.1991 with effect from 31.10.1991. The respondent challenged the compulsory retirement order before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2386 of 1992. The learned Administrative Member quashed the compulsory retirement order solely on the ground that the earlier Tribunal order dated 11.4.1990 in O.A.No.282 of 1989 barred the disciplinary enquiry. The Member also opined that the respondent's joining duty on 6.12.1988 was perfectly in order and that the earlier order did not grant permission to take disciplinary proceedings. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that the earlier Tribunal order only set aside the deemed resignation for procedural violation and did not preclude a regular disciplinary enquiry under the service rules. The respondent supported the Tribunal's reasoning that the earlier order barred the enquiry. The Supreme Court held that the main ground for the earlier Tribunal order was the failure to follow prescribed procedure and violation of natural justice. The observation regarding the respondent's entitlement to join duty on 6.12.1988 had no relevance to the competence of the disciplinary authority to hold a regular enquiry on the distinct charge of unauthorized foreign employment. The Court further held that no permission of the Tribunal was required for holding a disciplinary enquiry according to rules. The earlier order did not bar a disciplinary enquiry conducted in accordance with rules and natural justice. Since the only ground on which the Administrative Member set aside the compulsory retirement order was unsustainable, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal order, and restored the compulsory retirement. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - Not mentioned - The respondent, a Jeep Driver, was absent on leave and later found to have worked abroad without permission; the disciplinary authority passed an order of compulsory retirement after a regular enquiry. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal quashed the compulsory retirement order on the sole ground that the earlier Tribunal order setting aside the deemed resignation barred the disciplinary enquiry. The Supreme Court held that the earlier order only set aside the resignation for violation of prescribed procedure and natural justice, and did not bar a subsequent regular disciplinary enquiry on distinct charges; no prior permission from the Tribunal was required. Held that the Tribunal's ground was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the earlier order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal quashing the deemed resignation order on grounds of violation of natural justice barred the disciplinary authority from holding a regular disciplinary enquiry on charges of unauthorized foreign employment; whether the learned Administrative Member was correct in setting aside the compulsory retirement order solely on the ground that the earlier Tribunal order did not grant permission to hold disciplinary proceedings
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside; order of compulsory retirement dated 14.10.1991 restored; no order as to costs
Law Points
- A disciplinary authority can hold a regular disciplinary enquiry on charges of unauthorized foreign employment even after an earlier termination order is quashed for procedural violation
- no permission of tribunal is required for disciplinary enquiry under service rules
- quashing of an order for violation of natural justice does not bar departmental proceedings on distinct misconduct
