2004 (10) TMI 592 - SC - Indian Laws

Delay in filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) - Allegations of corrupt practices and demand for illegal gratification - Disciplinary proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officer - Compliance with principles of natural justice - Proportionality of the punishment imposed - The appellants senior translators in the High Court of Bombay - HELD THAT - As per Rule 8 of the Bombay Rules if the disciplinary authority is not agreeing with the reasons given by the enquiry officer it would be open to the disciplinary authority to hold further enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 and Rule 8(2) shows that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer on any of the articles of charge he shall record him reasons for such disagreement. Sub-rule 4(i) (a) of Rule 8 of the Bombay rules further shows that the copy of the report of the enquiry officer and his finding on each article of charge together with brief reasons shall be given to the delinquent employee. The rule further says that the disciplinary authority shall give its reasons for disagreeing with the decision of the enquiry officer. The counsel for the appellants contended that even if the rule does not specifically says that the delinquent employee should be given personal hearing when it disagree with the enquiry officer the same shall be read into the provision and the delinquent employee shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing before a final decision is taken in the matter. In this connection reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Punjab National-Bank and Ors. v. Kuni Behari Misra etc. 1998 (8) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT . Relying on these decisions the counsel for the appellants contended that after the receipt of the report from the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority should have given notices to the appellants with its tentative conclusion and an opportunity be given to the delinquent before the report of the enquiry officer is reversed by the disciplinary authority. It was also argued that the appellants should have been heard by the disciplinary authority before such a decision was rendered. Even though the rule as such does not contemplate of giving an opportunity of being given to the delinquent appellants before the disciplinary authority takes a final decision to disagree with the reasons given by the enquiry officer such a provision could be read into the rule but even then the appellants cannot be heard to say that there shall be a personal hearing by the disciplinary authority. In the instant case the appellants were given a copy of the tentative decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellants furnished detailed explanation and we are of the view that the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with and we do not find any infraction of rules or infirmity in the said decision. It is true that the disciplinary authority gave its reasons for disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer and the appellants had given their fullfledged explanation and if at all the disciplinary authority gave detailed tentative decision before seeking explanation from the appellants it enabled them to give an effective representation and the principles of natural justice were fully complied with and it cannot be said that the appellants were not being heard in the matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals upholding the High Court s decision to dismiss the appellants from service finding no infraction of rules or principles of natural justice and considering the punishment proportionate to the charges of corruption.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).
2. Allegations of corrupt practices and demand for illegal gratification.
3. Disciplinary proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officer.
4. Disagreement by the disciplinary authority with the Enquiry Officer's report.
5. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
6. Proportionality of the punishment imposed.

Summary:

1. Delay in Filing SLPs:
Delay condoned in SLP (C) Nos. 1243-1244 of 2003 and leave granted in both Special Leave Petition (c) No. 1241 of 2003 and Special Leave Petition (c) Nos. 1243-1244 of 2003.

2. Allegations of Corrupt Practices:
The appellants, senior translators in the High Court of Bombay, were accused by Ms. Vasanti Joshi of demanding illegal gratification for translating documents. An inquiry was directed by the High Court based on this complaint.

3. Disciplinary Proceedings:
An Additional Registrar was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found the appellants not guilty of the charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with this finding and concluded that the appellants were guilty, leading to their dismissal from service.

4. Disagreement by Disciplinary Authority:
The disciplinary authority, after receiving the Enquiry Officer's report, disagreed with the findings and provided reasons for such disagreement. The appellants were given an opportunity to explain why the Enquiry Officer's report should be accepted, but their explanations were not accepted, resulting in their dismissal.

5. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that they were not given an effective opportunity to argue against the disciplinary authority's disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report. The Court referred to Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and relevant case law, concluding that the principles of natural justice were fully complied with. The appellants were given a copy of the tentative decision and had the opportunity to provide a detailed explanation.

6. Proportionality of Punishment:
The appellants argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The Court, considering the evidence and the present-day situation of rampant corruption, upheld the High Court's decision to impose the punishment of dismissal. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the appellants from service, finding no infraction of rules or principles of natural justice, and considering the punishment proportionate to the charges of corruption.