IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6684 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.6301/2006]

PARWATI DEVI .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard the parties.

2. The  appellant  is  the  widow  of  A.  Bahadur,  a  Railway  employee.  A

departmental  enquiry  was  held  against  the  employee  in  regard  to  the  charge  of

unauthorised  absence  from  6.6.1995  and  punishment  of  removal  was  imposed  on

5.12.1997.  The employee died in the year 2000.  The appellant, on becoming aware of

the order of  removal in 2001,   filed an appeal which was rejected.   Thereafter, she

approached  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  which remitted  the  matter  to  the

disciplinary authority for reconsidering the punishment.  The said order was challenged

before the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order modified the order of

the Tribunal.  The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings was conducted in

violation of the rules of natural justice and, therefore, the order imposing penalty was

invalid and nonest.  However, having regard to the fact that the delinquent employee had

expired and the proceedings were being  

.........2.

- 2 -

pursued by the widow, the High Court was of the view that instead of permitting the

authorities to start an enquiry denovo, the matter should be disposed of with liberty to

the authorities to impose a penalty other than removal or dismissal.  The said order is

under challenge in this appeal by special leave.

3. We are informed that  in  pursuance of  the  order of  the  High Court,  the

respondents have passed an order on 30.6.2005 imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirment against appellant's husband.

4. Learned counsel for the appelalnt submitted that once the enquiry was found

to be in violation of principles of natural justice and the High Court held that the order

of  penalty was  nonest,  it  should  be  deemed that  the  employee  was  in  service  and

consequently appropriate relief ought to have been given.  He also pointed out that

having set aside the order of punishment as the enquiry was invalid and nonest, the High

Court could not have directed imposition of other punishment and such a direction was

contrary to law.  There is considerable force in the contention of the appellant. If the

enquiry was nonest,  the High Court could not have directed imposition of any other

punishment.   

........3.

- 3 -

5. At this stage, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General,

appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents are willing to grant family

pension to the appellant making it clear that it was offered on the peculiar facts of the

case and the same not being treated as precedent.  Learned counsel for the appellant

agreed that the matter can be treated as closed if the appellant is given family pension.   

6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the order of the

High Court  by  recording the  submission  of  the  respondents  that  appellant  will  be

granted family pension from the date of death of her husband.  She will not be entitled

to any monetary relief in regard to the period between 5.12.1997 and the date of her

husband's death.  Compliance and payment of arrears within three months.

  ...........................J.    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. November 14, 2008.           ( J.M. PANCHAL )