http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DARSHAN SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   540        1996 SCALE  (2)576

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      On January  11, 1996,  since  the  respondent  had  not appeared,  the  matter  was  heard  ex-parte.  However,  the appellant  was   directed  to  produce  copy  of  the  order dismissing the  respondent from  service. That order has now been placed  on record.  The  respondent  was  removed  from service by  the proceedings  of the  General Manager  of the appellant on  May 26,  1989. The  respondent filed  the Suit No.450/91 Questioning it for a declaration that the order of removal was  illegal.  The  trial  Court  proceeded  on  the finding that the order of removal is based upon the previous conduct of  the respondent which was not put in issue before he  was  removed  from  service.  Therefore,  the  order  is vitiated by  error of  law. That was upheld by the appellate Court. The  Second Appeal was dismissed summarily. Thus this appeal is by special leave.      The order  of removal clearly indicates that the charge was framed  on the  basis that  he committed  misconduct  in collecting fares  from the passengers but had not issued the tickets  to   them.  Evidence   was  adduced   after  giving reasonable opportunity  and it was found that the defence of the respondent was not proved. As a consequence, it was held in paragraph  5 that  "in view of foregoing discussions, the charge of  committing fraud  to  the  tune  of  Rs.7.50  ps. against Shri  Darshan Singh,  C. is established." In view of that finding, the respondent was removed from service. While communicating the  order, they  have indicated  the previous punishments he  had to  his credit.  That does not mean that they have  taken into  account  those  previous  punishments imposed on  him. The  courts below,  therefore, have wrongly proceeded on  the assumption that the disciplinary authority had taken  into consideration  the previous  conduct without any  charge   being  framed   in  that  behalf  or  that  no opportunity was given to the respondent in this behalf.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed.  The  suit  stands

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

dismissed. No costs.