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

PETITIONER: NIHAL SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.K.GAMKHAR (DEAD) THROUGH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/07/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. SRINIVASAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                      J U D G E M E N T SRINIVASAN, J.      The appellant  was working  as  L.D.C  and  officiating U.D.C. in  Land &  Development office, Delhi Administration. He  was  placed  under  suspension  w.e.f  2.3.1959  because disciplinary  enquiry   was   contemplated.   The   Land   & Development office was transferred to the Central Government and put  under the  Ministry of  works, Housing and supply n October, 1959.  The case  of the  appellant was reviewed and the order  of suspension  was revoked  w.e.f  24.2.1960.  On 6.4.73, the  Land &  Development  officer  issued  an  order whereby the  appellant was  deemed to  have been promoted as Superintendent  in   the  scale   of  Rs.  250-15-400  W.E.F 25.2.1959. The  positioned was  reviewed by the Ministry and it directed  cancellation of  the order  dated 6.4.73 as the seniority of  the appellant  was still  under consideration. Consequently an  order was passed on 27.10.73 cancelling the earlier orders.  On 24.8.76  an order was passed against the appellant as a result of a departmental enquiry holding that he was  guilty of  gross  indiscipline  and  misconduct  and awarding  punishment  of  withholding  two  increments  with cumulative effect.  A third  order  was  passed  on  5.10.76 compulsority retiring  the appellant  from service. A fourth order was  passed on  7.12.76 restricting  his pay  for  the period of suspension to the amount of subsistence allowance. 2.   The appellant  challenged the  said High Court of Delhi in C.W.187/77.malafides  on the  part  of  the  officer  who passed the order dated  27.10.73. 3.   The main  reasons given  by the Division Bench are that the appellant was not eligible for promotion too the post of Superintendent  in   1959  as  he  was  only  a  L.D.C.  and officiating as U.D.C. and that there was no record  show the existence of  any vacancy in the post of Superintendent. The Appellate Bench  could also  find any material to agree with the Single Judge on the question of malafides on the part of the officer who passed the order dated 27.10.73. 4.   Learned counsel  for the appellant has taken us through the order of the learned single Judge and submitted that the findings arrived  at by him should have been accepted by the Division Bench.  We have  perused the  records placed before

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

us. We  do not  find any material to support the contentions of the  appellants counsel.  The reasoning  adopted  by  the Letters Patent  Bench is  well founded  and    there  is  no justification to  interfere with  the same. We find no merit in the  appeal. It  is hereby  dismissed. There  will be  no order as to costs.