1962 (10) TMI 56 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the order of dismissal was void because the rules relating to the holding of an enquiry against non-gezetted public servants called the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951. were discriminatory and that in holding the enquiry against him the Tribunal had violated the rules of natural justice? Held that - If the order may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court has no jurisdiction if the findings of the enquiry officer or the Tribunal Prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour to direct the authority to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice. The High Court was in our judgment in error in directing the Governor of Orissa to reconsider the question. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the order passed by the High Court set aside. Having regard to the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs in this Court and the High Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Discrimination between Tribunal Rules and Classification Rules.
2. Violation of rules of natural justice by the Tribunal.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to direct reconsideration of the punishment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrimination between Tribunal Rules and Classification Rules
The primary issue was whether the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951 (Tribunal Rules) were discriminatory compared to the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (Classification Rules). The High Court had previously held that the Tribunal Rules were more drastic and prejudicial to non-gazetted public servants than the Classification Rules, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court observed that the main differences arose from the nature of the punishment and the right of appeal. Under the Tribunal Rules, the findings and proposed punishment were recommendations to the Government, which had to consult the Public Service Commission before passing final orders, and there was no right of appeal against the Governor's order. Conversely, under the Classification Rules, there was a right of appeal against the departmental head's order. The High Court concluded that this unfettered discretion to apply either set of rules for disciplinary action offended Article 14.

2. Violation of Rules of Natural Justice by the Tribunal
The respondent contended that the Tribunal violated the rules of natural justice during the enquiry. The High Court found that the findings on charges 1(a) and 1(e) were vitiated due to this violation but upheld the findings on charges 1(c), 1(d), and charge (2). The High Court directed that if the Supreme Court disagreed with the Dhirendranath Das case, the findings on charges 1(a) and 1(e) should be set aside, leaving the Government to decide the appropriate punishment based on the remaining charges.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Direct Reconsideration of the Punishment
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to reconsider the order of dismissal. The Court emphasized that if the enquiry was consistent with the prescribed rules and the findings established grave delinquency, the penalty imposed by the competent authority was not open to review by the Court. The Court stated that the constitutional guarantee to a public servant is that they shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which they were appointed and shall have a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The Court concluded that if the order could be supported on any finding of substantial misdemeanour, it was not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, stating that the High Court erred in directing the Governor of Orissa to reconsider the punishment. The Court affirmed that the findings of the Tribunal on charges 1(c), 1(d), and charge (2) were sufficient to uphold the dismissal, and the penalty imposed by the competent authority was not justiciable.