1997 (2) TMI 562 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the respondent's dismissal from service.
2. Jurisdictional error by the High Court in re-appreciating evidence.
3. Alleged discrimination in the punishment awarded.
4. Denial of reasonable opportunity during the enquiry process.

Summary:

Legality of the Respondent's Dismissal from Service:
The respondent, a Senior Stenographer at the Corporation, was implicated in a racket involving false medical bills. Following a vigilance enquiry, an FIR was lodged, and the respondent was charged u/s 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Despite being acquitted by the criminal courts, the Corporation initiated a departmental enquiry under the CDA Rules, resulting in the respondent's dismissal on July 21, 1992, for gross misconduct.

Jurisdictional Error by the High Court:
The High Court quashed the dismissal order, deeming it "wholly arbitrary" and reinstated the respondent with back wages. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a serious jurisdictional error by re-appreciating the evidence and interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. The High Court's role is limited to instances where the enquiry is vitiated due to non-observance of natural justice, lack of evidence, or disproportionate punishment.

Alleged Discrimination in the Punishment Awarded:
The respondent argued that the punishment was discriminatory as other employees involved received minor penalties. The Supreme Court found that the Disciplinary Authority rightly awarded a different penalty to the respondent, who was the main actor behind the misconduct. The High Court's comparison with other employees was misplaced, and there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Denial of Reasonable Opportunity:
The respondent claimed he was denied a reasonable opportunity during the enquiry. The Supreme Court found this claim devoid of merit, noting that the respondent failed to illustrate how he was denied such an opportunity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's judgments dated May 27, 1993, and November 25, 1993. The orders of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority were upheld, and the respondent's reinstatement was overturned. No order as to costs was made.