Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from a suit filed by the respondent, a conductor, challenging his removal from service by the General Manager of the appellant State of Punjab on May 26, 1989. The respondent was charged with misconduct for collecting fares from passengers without issuing tickets, resulting in a fraud of Rs.7.50. The departmental inquiry found that the defence was not proved and the charge was established in paragraph 5 of the inquiry report. The respondent filed Suit No.450/91 seeking a declaration that the removal order was illegal. The trial court held that the removal order was based upon the previous conduct of the respondent which was not put in issue before removal, and therefore the order was vitiated by error of law. The appellate court upheld this finding and the second appeal was dismissed summarily. The State of Punjab then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. On January 11, 1996, since the respondent had not appeared, the matter was heard ex-parte and the appellant was directed to produce a copy of the order dismissing the respondent from service. That order was placed on record. The Supreme Court examined the removal order and found that the charge was framed on the basis of misconduct in collecting fares without issuing tickets. Evidence was adduced after giving reasonable opportunity and the respondent's defence was not proved. The inquiry report in paragraph 5 clearly stated that the charge of committing fraud to the tune of Rs.7.50 ps. against the respondent was established. While communicating the removal order, the disciplinary authority indicated the previous punishments of the respondent, but that did not mean the authority had taken those previous punishments into account as a basis for removal. The lower courts had wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the disciplinary authority had considered the previous conduct without any charge being framed or opportunity given. The Supreme Court held that the removal was based on the proved charge of misconduct and not on uncharged past conduct. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the suit stood dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Removal from Service - No Specific Statute Cited in Judgment - The respondent, a conductor, was removed from service by the General Manager on May 26, 1989 after a departmental inquiry in which he was charged with collecting fares from passengers without issuing tickets, resulting in fraud of Rs.7.50. Evidence was adduced after giving reasonable opportunity and the respondent's defence was not proved; the inquiry report in paragraph 5 held the charge of committing fraud to the tune of Rs.7.50 ps. as established. While communicating the removal order, the disciplinary authority indicated the respondent's previous punishments, but did not rely upon them as a basis for removal. The lower courts erroneously assumed that the disciplinary authority had taken into account the previous conduct without any charge or opportunity, thereby vitiating the removal order. Held that the appeal is allowed and the suit challenging the removal order is dismissed with no costs (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower courts erred in holding that the disciplinary authority had taken into account the respondent's previous conduct without a charge being framed or opportunity given, thereby vitiating the order of removal from service.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed; the suit stood dismissed; no costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Removal from service can be based on a proved charge of misconduct after a departmental inquiry with reasonable opportunity
- a disciplinary authority is not deemed to have considered previous punishments merely because they are mentioned in the order of removal
- lower courts erred in presuming that previous conduct was taken into account without a charge or opportunity
- fraud of Rs.7.50 by collecting fares without issuing tickets is a valid ground for removal
- appeal allowed and suit dismissed
