2003 (2) TMI 529 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the Appellant
2. Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
3. Validity of Respondent No. 3's Voluntary Retirement and Subsequent Withdrawal
4. Employment with a Foreign Firm and Misleading Conduct
5. Impact on Seniority and Service Continuation
6. High Court's Judgment and Directions for Disciplinary Proceedings

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Appellant:
The appellant challenged the re-induction of Respondent No. 3 into service, claiming that it affected his seniority. The CAT and the High Court held that the appellant had locus standi to challenge the government's action. The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that the appellant was a "person aggrieved" as his seniority would be affected if Respondent No. 3 remained in service. The appellant's claim was not based on mere expectations or accidental windfall.

2. Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT):
The CAT had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the appellant. The High Court and the Supreme Court both upheld this, stating that the issue of seniority is a service matter under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Supreme Court noted that the findings of the High Court on the jurisdiction of the CAT had become final as Respondent No. 3's Special Leave Petition challenging this was dismissed.

3. Validity of Respondent No. 3's Voluntary Retirement and Subsequent Withdrawal:
Respondent No. 3 applied for voluntary retirement on 5th May, 1993, and the Government of India accepted it on 2nd March, 1995, with effect from May 1993. The Supreme Court held that the relationship of master and servant was severed upon acceptance of the voluntary retirement by the Government of India. The court rejected the argument that the severance was not effective until communicated to Respondent No. 3. The court emphasized that the retirement became effective immediately upon acceptance by the Government, and Respondent No. 3 could not withdraw his request after this acceptance.

4. Employment with a Foreign Firm and Misleading Conduct:
Respondent No. 3 had taken up employment with a foreign firm, M/s. California Designs and Constructions Inc., and represented it before various departments of the State Government. This was considered a severance of the master-servant relationship. The Supreme Court noted that Respondent No. 3 had misled the High Court and the Government of India by concealing his employment with the foreign firm. The court found that Respondent No. 3's conduct indicated an abandonment of service.

5. Impact on Seniority and Service Continuation:
The High Court had initially directed that Respondent No. 3 should not claim seniority over the appellant and other officers until a comprehensive decision was made on the allegations against him. However, the Supreme Court held that Respondent No. 3 had ceased to be in service from May 1993, and thus, the question of seniority did not arise. The court clarified that Respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any pay or benefits from May 1993 onwards and expected him to return any benefits received post this period.

6. High Court's Judgment and Directions for Disciplinary Proceedings:
The High Court had allowed the writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 3 and the Government of India, setting aside the CAT's order and directing disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3. The Supreme Court, however, restored the CAT's order, quashing the Government of India's order dated 14th August, 1997, which allowed Respondent No. 3 to withdraw his voluntary retirement. The court emphasized that Respondent No. 3 had ceased to be in service from May 1993 and that the CAT's order was effective again.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restored the CAT's order, and clarified that Respondent No. 3 had ceased to be in government service from May 1993. The court directed that there was no necessity for any further order terminating his service, and any official records showing his continuation in service should be corrected. Respondent No. 3 was expected to return any pay or benefits received post-May 1993.