advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, March 15, 2014

It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the plaint and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas.

  Service matter - conductor removed from service - Disproportion punishment and non supply of documents and no opportunity to cross examine the witness - Suit filed - with out proper pleadings and evidence - as no evidence was adduced by the respondent and as the point of jurisdiction was not pressed - the lower court decreed the suit and High court also in second appeal confirmed the same as it can not touch the fact - Apex court held that since there is no pleadings and evidence , still the burden on plaintiff not discharged and in such an event no court should decree the suit and Apex court set aside the order and judgement of lower courts and allowed the appeal =

Departmental proceedings 
Two  chargesheets   dated
      11.3.1988 were served upon him.  In  the  first  chargesheet,  it  was
      alleged that on 24.2.1988 while he was on duty  enroute  Kota-Rajpura,
      when his bus was  checked,  it  was  found  that  10  passengers  were
      traveling without tickets,  though he had collected the fare from each
      of them.  In the second chargesheet, it had been alleged that when  he
      was on duty on route Kota-Neemuch, his bus  was  checked  and  he  was
      found carrying two passengers traveling on tickets  of  lesser  amount
      though, he had collected the  full  fare  from  them.  The  respondent
      submitted separate reply to the said chargesheets which were not found
      satisfactory. Therefore, the enquiry officer was appointed to  enquire
      into the matter and a regular enquiry  ensued.   The  enquiry  officer
      after conclusion of the enquiry  submitted  the  report  holding  that
      charges leveled against the respondent in both the chargesheets  stood
      proved against him.
      B.    After considering the report, the  Disciplinary  Authority  vide
      order dated 5.8.1988 passed order of punishment of  removal  from  the
      service.  The respondent filed a Civil Suit  on  2.9.1988  challenging
      the order of removal alleging  that  he  was  not  supplied  with  the
      documents referred to in the chargesheets, nor was given  the  enquiry
      report nor other documents.  More so, the quantum  of  punishment  was
      disproportionate to the proved delinquency.
 Suit with out proper pleadings and facts

 Neither there is any specific pleading as to what document
      had not been supplied to him which has been relied upon by the enquiry
      officer or which witness was not permitted to be  cross-  examined  by
      him. The trial court did not make any reference to enquiry  report  or
      contents thereof.  The entire case is based on ipsi dixi.


      12.  It is settled proposition of law that a party has  to  plead  the
      case  and  produce/adduce  sufficient  evidence  to  substantiate  his
      submissions made in the plaint and  in  case  the  pleadings  are  not
      complete, the Court is under no obligation  to  entertain  the  pleas.
      (Vide: M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. v. State of  Gujarat  &  Ors.,
      AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building  Construction  Corporation  v.  S.
      Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani  &
      Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt. Chitra Kumari v. Union of India  &  Ors.,
      AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.P. v.  Chandra  Prakash  Pandey,  AIR
      2001 SC 1298.)
With all respect, we do not agree with such a conclusion reached
      by the High Court, as Second Appeal, in exceptional circumstances, can
      be entertained on pure questions of fact.  There is no prohibition for
      the High Court to entertain the Second Appeal even on question of fact
      where factual findings are found to be perverse.


      18.  In   Ibrahim Uddin (Supra), this Court held:
              “65. In Suwalal Chhogalal v. CIT, (1949) 17 ITR 269 (Nag) the
           Court held as under: (ITR p. 277)
              “… A fact is a fact irrespective of evidence by which  it  is
           proved. The only time a question of law can arise in such a case
           is when it is alleged that there is no  material  on  which  the
           conclusion can be based or no sufficient material.


              67. There is no prohibition to entertain a second appeal even
           on question of fact provided the Court  is  satisfied  that  the
           findings of the courts below were vitiated by  non-consideration
           of relevant evidence or by showing  erroneous  approach  to  the
           matter and findings recorded in the court  below  are  perverse.



No  Disproportionate punishment

In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh  v.  Krishnan  Behari,
    
       AIR 1996 SC 1249 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4)


              “4. … In a case of such  nature—indeed,  in  cases  involving
           corruption—there cannot be any other punishment than  dismissal.
           Any sympathy shown in such cases is  totally  uncalled  for  and
           opposed to public interest. The amount  misappropriated  may  be
           small or large; it  is  the  act  of  misappropriation  that  is
           relevant.”
           Similar view has been reiterated  by  this  Court  in  Ruston  &
           Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025, U.P.  SRTC  v.
           Basudeo Chaudhary, (1997)  11  SCC  370,  Janatha  Bazar  (South
           Kanara  Central  Coop.  Wholesale  Stores  Ltd.)   v.   Sahakari
           Noukarara Sangha, (2000) 7  SCC  517,  Karnataka  SRTC  v.  B.S.
           Hullikatti, AIR 2001 SC 930  and  Rajasthan  SRTC  v.  Ghanshyam
           Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330.”


      20.   In view of the above, the contention raised  on  behalf  of  the
      respondent employee, that the punishment of removal  from  service  is
      disproportionate to the delinquency is not worth acceptance.  
The only
      punishment in case of the proved case of corruption is dismissal  from
      service.


      21.   As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.  The  judgments
      of the courts below are set  aside  and  the  order  of  removal  from
      service passed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored.  No order as
      to costs.
2014 (March. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41321
B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR
                                                             REPORTABLE



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4104 of 2007




      Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. & Anr.                        …Appellants




                                   Versus


      Bajrang Lal                                        …Respondent








                                  O R D E R


      Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.




      1.    This appeal has been  preferred  by  the  Rajasthan  State  Road
      Transport  Corporation  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  `Corporation’)
      against the judgment and order dated  8.11.2005  passed  by  the  High
      Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Civil  Second
      Appeal No. 449  of  2003  upholding  the  judgment  and  decree  dated
      28.1.2003 in Civil Regular Appeal No. 119 of 2002 passed by Additional
      District Judge, Jaipur, by which and whereunder, it has  affirmed  the
      judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994 passed by  the  Additional  Civil
      Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 1346 of 1988.


      2.    Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
      A.    The  respondent while working as a trainee  conductor  on  daily
      basis was found carrying certain passengers without tickets and, thus,
      an  enquiry  was  initiated  against  him.   Two  chargesheets   dated
      11.3.1988 were served upon him.  In  the  first  chargesheet,  it  was
      alleged that on 24.2.1988 while he was on duty  enroute  Kota-Rajpura,
      when his bus was  checked,  it  was  found  that  10  passengers  were
      traveling without tickets,  though he had collected the fare from each
      of them.  In the second chargesheet, it had been alleged that when  he
      was on duty on route Kota-Neemuch, his bus  was  checked  and  he  was
      found carrying two passengers traveling on tickets  of  lesser  amount
      though, he had collected the  full  fare  from  them.  The  respondent
      submitted separate reply to the said chargesheets which were not found
      satisfactory. Therefore, the enquiry officer was appointed to  enquire
      into the matter and a regular enquiry  ensued.   The  enquiry  officer
      after conclusion of the enquiry  submitted  the  report  holding  that
      charges leveled against the respondent in both the chargesheets  stood
      proved against him.
      B.    After considering the report, the  Disciplinary  Authority  vide
      order dated 5.8.1988 passed order of punishment of  removal  from  the
      service.  The respondent filed a Civil Suit  on  2.9.1988  challenging
      the order of removal alleging  that  he  was  not  supplied  with  the
      documents referred to in the chargesheets, nor was given  the  enquiry
      report nor other documents.  More so, the quantum  of  punishment  was
      disproportionate to the proved delinquency.
      C.    The  Suit was  contested  by  the  appellants  denying  all  the
      averments made therein.  However, on conclusion of the trial, the Suit
      was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994.
      D.    Aggrieved, the Corporation filed Civil Regular Appeal No. 119 of
      2002, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003.
      E.    The Corporation  challenged  both  the  aforesaid  judgments  by
      filing Regular Second  Appeal  No.  449  of  2003,  which  also  stood
      dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree.
            Hence, this appeal.


      3.    Shri S. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf  of
      the appellants, has submitted that  none  of  the  courts  below  have
      examined the case in correct perspective.   The  stand  taken  by  the
      appellants that the Suit itself was  not  maintainable,  as  the  only
      remedy available to the respondent was to approach  the  Labour  Court
      under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter  referred  to  as
      the `Act 1947’) has not been properly examined by  the  courts  below.
      More  so,  the   pleadings   in   the   plaint   were   vague.     The
      respondent/plaintiff failed to prove any of the  allegations  made  in
      the plaint, therefore, the courts below have erred in holding that the
      enquiry stood vitiated due to violation of  statutory  provisions  and
      principles  of  natural  justice.   The  enquiry  had  been  conducted
      strictly in accordance with law, the provisions of Section 35  of  the
      Standing Order have been fully complied with and  the  respondent  was
      given full opportunity to defend himself.   Therefore, the findings of
      fact recorded by the courts below in this respect are  perverse.   The
      respondent was found to have embezzled money of  the  corporation  and
      the punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be  disproportionate  to
      the proved delinquency.  Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.


      4.    On the contrary, Shri Anis Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing
      on behalf of the respondent, has opposed the  appeal  contending  that
      there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the  three  courts.
      The trial court as well as the first appellate court have recorded the
      findings of fact that the enquiry had not been conducted in accordance
      with  law  and  the  punishment  of   dismissal   from   service   was
      disproportionate to the delinquency proved. Therefore, no interference
      is called for.


      5.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties  and  perused  the
      record.


      6.    Undoubtedly,  the  appellant  corporation  had  taken  the  plea
      regarding  the  maintainability  of  suit  on  the  ground  that   the
      respondent  being  a  workman  ought  to  have  approached  the  forum
      available under the Act 1947 and the civil suit was not  maintainable.
      In order to fortify  this  submission  Shri  Bhattacharya  has  placed
      reliance on the judgments of this Court  in  The  Premier  Automobiles
      Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & Ors., AIR 1975  SC  2238;
      Uttam Das Chela Sunder Das v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee,
      Amritsar,  AIR 1996 SC 2133; Rajasthan SRTC & Ors. v. Mohar Singh, AIR
      2008 SC 2553; Rajasthan SRTC & Anr. v. Bal Mukund Bairwa, (2009) 4 SCC
      299; and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &  Ors.,  v.  Deen
      Dayal Sharma, AIR 2010 SC 2662 and asserted that the judgments of  the
      courts below  are without jurisdiction.


      7.    Be that as it may, before the trial court,  the  appellants  did
      not press the issue regarding the maintainability of suit even  though
      the issue in this regard had specifically been framed.  Thus,  we  are
      not inclined in delving into this controversy at all.


      8.    The relevant part of the plaint reads:
           “That the plaintiff was imposed with the charge sheet  no.  1158
           dated 11.3.88 that on date 24.2.88 on the route Kota-Rajpura his
           vehicle was checked and it was found during  the course  of  the
           inspection that he was carrying 10  passengers  without  tickets
           and another Charge sheet no. 1159 dated 11.3.88 was imposed with
           the statement that on date  27.11.88  the  plaintiff  was  found
           carrying 2 passengers without tickets during the course  of  his
           giving the duty on the route Kota-Neernuch in  the  capacity  of
           the conductor and  he  was  also  caught  in  the  case  of  the
           difference in the ticket amount. That if the bus was not checked
           in time then the plaintiff would have used  the  entire  sum  of
           money he recovered from the passengers found without tickets for
           his personal use. Whereas as per the terms and conditions of the
           Corporation the plaintiff is required to issue  the  tickets  to
           all the passengers and then to  get  the  same  entered  in  the
           waybill  and  that  then  only  the  vehicle  should  have  been
           departed.  The  aforesaid  charges  were   totally   wrong   and
           baseless.”


      9.    The  appellant/defendant  in  its  written  statement  basically
      stated:
           ?“?The Defendants have mentioned in the reply that  the  plaintiff
           had been appointed on the post of the  conductor  on  the  daily
           wage basis. The plaintiff  is  not  entitled  of  receiving  the
           salary of the regular pay scale from the  date  7.12.85  because
           the plaintiff was appointed as a daily wageworker and the salary
           in accordance with the law was given to the plaintiff.
               ? During the course of the inquiry the  plaintiff  was  given
           full opportunity of defence and of being heard. The copy of  the
           enquiry  report  was  supplied  to  the  plaintiff   after   the
           completion of the inquiry and he was also intimated  the  result
           of the inquiry. In this way no violation  of  the  principle  of
           natural justice was done as against the  plaintiff  whereas  the
           provisions of section 35  of  the  standing  orders  were  fully
           complied with. The Disciplinary Authority had by fully  applying
           its mind passed the order of termination of the  plaintiff.  The
           plaintiff has produced the  court  fee  at  his  own  risk.  The
           Defendant  Corporation  comes  within  the  definition  of   the
           "Industry" and for which  it  is  only  the  Hon'ble  Industrial
           Tribunal who has got the jurisdiction to  hear  and  decide  the
           case of such nature. The plaintiff is not entitled of  receiving
           the monetary benefits and other consequential benefits from  the
           defendants. Therefore, the suit of the  plaintiff  be  dismissed
           with costs.”




      10.   After appreciating the material on record, the trial court held:
             “In this way the plaintiff has clearly made the  allegation  in
           the plaint that in the inquiry the statement  of  the  witnesses
           were not recorded in front of the plaintiff. He was not given an
           opportunity to  cross-examine  the  witnesses  produced  by  the
           defendant corporation and nor he was  given  an  opportunity  to
           defend his case and lead the evidence. That he was not  supplied
           with the copies of the  documents  and  was  not  heard  on  the
           quantum of the punishment and he deposed the same by way of  the
           affidavit. That in order to contradict the same  the  defendants
           have not produced any evidence by way of deposition and nor  any
           other document in support of the same has been  produced.  Under
           these circumstances,  there  is  no  reason  to  disbelieve  the
           evidence of the plaintiff. That since the inquiry which has been
           initiated against the plaintiff  is  against  the  principle  of
           natural  justice,  under  these  circumstances,  the  order   of
           termination which has been  passed  is  also  against  the  law.
           Therefore, this suit issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff
           and             against             the             defendants.”
                 (Emphasis added)


      11.   The aforesaid findings recorded by the trial court is based only
      on the allegations made by the respondent in the plaint and on failure
      of the Corporation/defendant to rebut the same, though the trial court
      had proceeded with the case  clearly  observing  that  the  burden  of
      proving this issue was on the  respondent/plaintiff  and  not  on  the
      Corporation/defendant.  In  such  a  fact  situation,   no   reasoning
      whatsoever has been given  by  the  trial  court  in  support  of  its
      conclusion. Neither there is any specific pleading as to what document
      had not been supplied to him which has been relied upon by the enquiry
      officer or which witness was not permitted to be  cross-  examined  by
      him. The trial court did not make any reference to enquiry  report  or
      contents thereof.  The entire case is based on ipsi dixi.


      12.  It is settled proposition of law that a party has  to  plead  the
      case  and  produce/adduce  sufficient  evidence  to  substantiate  his
      submissions made in the plaint and  in  case  the  pleadings  are  not
      complete, the Court is under no obligation  to  entertain  the  pleas.
      (Vide: M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. v. State of  Gujarat  &  Ors.,
      AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building  Construction  Corporation  v.  S.
      Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani  &
      Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt. Chitra Kumari v. Union of India  &  Ors.,
      AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.P. v.  Chandra  Prakash  Pandey,  AIR
      2001 SC 1298.)


      13.   In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001  SC
      1684, this Court observed as under:–
           “The  findings  in  the  absence  of  necessary  pleadings   and
           supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law.”


      (See also: Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. v.  Prakash  N.  Rudrakar  &  Ors.,
      (2003) 1 SCC 18; Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs. v. P. Savithramma & Ors.,
      (2005) 7 SCC 653; Sait Nagjee  Purushotam  &  Co.  Ltd.  v.  Vimalabai
      Prabhulal  &  Ors.,  (2005)  8  SCC  252,   Rajasthan   Pradesh   V.S.
      Sardarshahar  & Anr. v. Union of India  &  Ors.,  AIR  2010  SC  2221;
      Ritesh Tiwari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010  SC  3823;  and
      Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148).


      14.   Therefore, once the trial court has  held  that  the  burden  of
      proof was on the respondent/plaintiff, it could not have come  to  the
      aforesaid findings as there is nothing  on  record  to  show  how  the
      averments/allegations made by the respondent stood proved.


      15.   Even the First Appellate Court misdirected itself while  dealing
      with the issue as it held:?
           ? “That no evidence was produced  by  the  defendants/appellants.
           The statement given by the plaintiff is unrebutted. That as  per
           the statement of the plaintiff the statement  of  the  witnesses
           were not recorded in front of the plaintiff. The  plaintiff  was
           not  given  an  opportunity  of  cross-examining  the  witnesses
           produced by the Defendants/Appellants.  The  plaintiff  was  not
           given an opportunity of leading the evidence and  defending  his
           case. The copies of the  documents  were  not  supplied  to  the
           plaintiff.  He  was  also  not  heard  on  the  quantum  of  the
           punishment. In this way the deposition given  by  the  plaintiff
           are not rebutted  and  due  to  the  reason  of  the  same  been
           unrebuttable it can be said that  no  departmental  inquiry  was
           initiated as against the plaintiff. Due to  the  reason  of  not
           holding  the  departmental  inquiry  the  proceeding   initiated
           against the plaintiff was not in accordance with  the  principle
           of natural justice.  The order of  termination  which  has  been
           passed without holding the inquiry cannot be said to  be  passed
           in accordance with the law.  In this way the finding arrived  at
           by the learned subordinate court in respect of the issue  no.  1
           is just and proper and there is no  need  to  interfere  in  the
           same.”


      16.   The appellate court committed a grave  error  by  declaring  the
      enquiry as non-est. The termination order as  a  consequence  thereof,
      stood vitiated though there is no reference to any  material  fact  on
      the basis of which such a conclusion was reached.   The  finding  that
      copy of the documents was not supplied  to  the  respondent/plaintiff,
      though there is nothing on record to show that how the documents  were
      relied upon and how they were relevant to  the  controversy  involved,
      whether those documents had been relied upon by  the  enquiry  officer
      and  how  any  prejudice  had  been  caused  by  non-supply  of  those
      documents, is therefore without  any  basis  or  evidence.   When  the
      matter reached the High Court in Second Appeal, the High Court refused
      to examine the issue at all by merely observing  that  no  substantial
      question of law  was  involved  and  the  findings  of  fact,  however
      erroneous, cannot be disturbed in Second Appeal.


      17.   With all respect, we do not agree with such a conclusion reached
      by the High Court, as Second Appeal, in exceptional circumstances, can
      be entertained on pure questions of fact.  There is no prohibition for
      the High Court to entertain the Second Appeal even on question of fact
      where factual findings are found to be perverse.


      18.  In   Ibrahim Uddin (Supra), this Court held:
              “65. In Suwalal Chhogalal v. CIT, (1949) 17 ITR 269 (Nag) the
           Court held as under: (ITR p. 277)
              “… A fact is a fact irrespective of evidence by which  it  is
           proved. The only time a question of law can arise in such a case
           is when it is alleged that there is no  material  on  which  the
           conclusion can be based or no sufficient material.


              67. There is no prohibition to entertain a second appeal even
           on question of fact provided the Court  is  satisfied  that  the
           findings of the courts below were vitiated by  non-consideration
           of relevant evidence or by showing  erroneous  approach  to  the
           matter and findings recorded in the court  below  are  perverse.
           [Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, AIR 1992 SC  1604,  Prativa
           Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1999) 5 SCC 353, Satya Gupta v.  Brijesh
           Kumar, (1998) 6 SCC 423, Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery
           & Co., AIR 2000 SC 534, Molar Mal v. Kay Iron  Works  (P)  Ltd.,
           AIR 2000 SC 1261,  Bharatha  Matha  v.  R.  Vijaya  Renganathan,
           (2010) 11 SCC 483 and Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali,  (2010  12  SCC
           740]


              68. In Jai Singh v. Shakuntala, AIR 2002 SC 1428, this  Court
           held that (SCC p. 638, para 6) it is  permissible  to  interfere
           even on question of fact but it may be only in
           “very exceptional cases  and  on  extreme  perversity  that  the
           authority to examine the same in extenso  stands  permissible—it
           is a rarity rather than a regularity and thus in fine it can  be
           safely concluded that while there is no prohibition as such, but
           the power to scrutiny  can  only  be  had  in  very  exceptional
           circumstances and upon proper circumspection”.
           Similar view has been taken in Kashmir Singh  v.  Harnam  Singh,
           AIR 2008 SC 1749.”




      19.    As regards  the  question  of  disproportionate  punishment  is
      concerned, the issue is  no  more  res-integra.   In  U.P  State  Road
      Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma,  (2010) 6  SCC  555,  it
      was  held as under:
            “22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh  v.  Krishnan  Behari,
           AIR 1996 SC 1249 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4)


              “4. … In a case of such  nature—indeed,  in  cases  involving
           corruption—there cannot be any other punishment than  dismissal.
           Any sympathy shown in such cases is  totally  uncalled  for  and
           opposed to public interest. The amount  misappropriated  may  be
           small or large; it  is  the  act  of  misappropriation  that  is
           relevant.”
           Similar view has been reiterated  by  this  Court  in  Ruston  &
           Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025, U.P.  SRTC  v.
           Basudeo Chaudhary, (1997)  11  SCC  370,  Janatha  Bazar  (South
           Kanara  Central  Coop.  Wholesale  Stores  Ltd.)   v.   Sahakari
           Noukarara Sangha, (2000) 7  SCC  517,  Karnataka  SRTC  v.  B.S.
           Hullikatti, AIR 2001 SC 930  and  Rajasthan  SRTC  v.  Ghanshyam
           Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330.”


      20.   In view of the above, the contention raised  on  behalf  of  the
      respondent employee, that the punishment of removal  from  service  is
      disproportionate to the delinquency is not worth acceptance.  The only
      punishment in case of the proved case of corruption is dismissal  from
      service.


      21.   As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.  The  judgments
      of the courts below are set  aside  and  the  order  of  removal  from
      service passed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored.  No order as
      to costs.


      …………......................J.
                                                 (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)





      ……….........................J.
                                                  (J. CHELAMESWAR)
      NEW DELHI
      March 14, 2014.?


      -----------------------
14


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.