REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1536             OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 18067 of 2006)

Praveen Bhatia  …..Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors.  ….Respondents  

J U D G M E N T  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division bench of the

Bombay  High  Court  dismissing  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  appellant.

Challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 24.6.1992 by which

he was compulsorily retired in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19

of the Air Force Act, 1950 (in short the ‘Act’) and Rule 15 of the Air Force

Rules, 1969 (in short the ‘Rules’).

3. Averments in the writ petition were to the following effect:

Appellant was granted commission in Air Force on 14.7.1973.  After

obtaining service in October, 1985, he got  engaged with daughter of one

Mulkh Rajh Kakkar,  a contractor  undertaking contracts  from respondents

only.   The  marriage  was  performed  on  14.1.1986.   His  father  in  law

thereafter expected the appellant to help him in procuring other Government

contracts particularly from Air Force and when the appellant refused to help

him, the problem started.  The marriage was not working out smoothly and

ultimately in 1988, his father in law lodged a complaint in this respect with

his employer. But by communication dated 8.12.1988 his employer refused

to  take  congnizance  of  the  matter  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  personal

dispute for which no departmental action could have been initiated.  He was

called upon to report to respondent No.3 at New Delhi on 19.6.1990 and

when he accordingly reported, he was kept in confinement and on 25.6.1990

a document already written was got signed from him and said document was

2

purported to be terms of settlement of dispute between the appellant and his

wife.  The appellant was not even permitted to consult an advocate nor was

he allowed to leave the room.  The appellant was thereunder informed that

Court  of  Enquiry  would  be  held  against  him at  Air  Force  Station,  New

Delhi, in February, 1991 and actually the terms of reference or any show

cause notice in this regard was not communicated to him.  As many as 27

witnesses were examined by both parties in these proceedings which were

spread over for a period of five months and ultimately the Court of Enquiry

submitted a report almost exonerating him on all counts.  Thereafter a show

cause notice dated 19.2.1992 was issued by respondent No. 3 calling upon

him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed or removed from

service. The appellant had not received necessary documents and even he

was  not  given  inspection  and  hence  the  appellant  approached  the  High

Court  by  filing  a  writ  petition.   By an  order  passed  on  12.3.1992,  writ

petition was dismissed by this Division Bench of the High Court observing

that the appellant was at liberty to file appropriate representation before the

authorities to highlight all his grievances-factual,  legal and constitutional.

Thereafter terms of reference dated 5.2.1991 were received by him and he

also got copy of findings of Court of Enquiry dated 16.6.1991.  Thereafter

on 30.3.1992, he submitted his reply to show cause notice pointing out that

3

there was no misconduct warranting any action from respondents and the

failure  to  submit  the  property  returns  within  time was not  a  misconduct

serious enough to warrant such grave punishment.  An additional reply to

show cause notice was filed on 22.6.1992.  On 24.6.1992, the order which

was  impugned  before  the  High  Court  came to  be  passed  and as  already

mentioned above, he was compulsorily retired.

Challenging the order of compulsory retirement the writ petition was

filed.  It was his stand that the court of enquiry has exonerated him on all

counts except late filing of property returns.    According to the appellant

same was not of serious nature which would warrant compulsory retirement.

The stand of the respondent before the High Court was that the transactions

were between 1981 to 1986 and the return was belatedly filed after about six

years  on  23.3.1992  therefore  the  conduct  was  most  unbecoming  of  an

officer of the Air Force.  Therefore the order of compulsory retirement was

legal and valid.  The High Court accepted the stand of the respondent and

dismissed the petition.   

The  stand  taken before  the  High  Court  is  reiterated  in  the  present

appeal.

4

4. Learned counsel  for the respondent  pointed out  that  not  only there

was belated filing of the returns but also there were several other instances

of misconduct which have been highlighted in the rejoinder affidavit filed

before this court.

5. According to him these misconducts were also taken note of while

directing compulsory retirement.

6. The claim of the appellant for pension was also denied on the ground

that at  the time of compulsory retirement,  he had put in 18 years and 11

months  of  service.   As  per  the  Pension  Regulations  for  the  Air  Force

minimum qualifying service for pension is  20 years.  This statement was

made with reference to the prayer of the appellant to convert the compulsory

retirement in normal retirement with effect from the said date as that could

not make the appellant eligible for pensionary benefits.

7. The  Scheme of  the  disciplinary  rules  in  general  is  to  identify  the

conduct  which  is  made  punishable  and  then  to  provide  for  the  various

punishments which may be imposed for the acts which are inconsistent with

such conduct.   For example,  the Central  Civil  Services (Conduct)  Rules,

5

1964 contain provisions which pertain to the standards of conduct which the

Government  servant  (within  the  meaning  of  those  rules)  are  to  follow

whereas  the  Central  Civil  Services  (Classification,  Control  and  Appeal)

Rules, 1965 provide the punishment or penalties which may be imposed for

misconduct.  The  conduct  rules  and  the  rules  for  punishment  may  be

provided in separate rules or combined into one.  Moreover, there are a host

of  departmental  instructions  which  elucidate,  amplify  and  provide

guidelines regarding the conduct of the employees.

8. The  range  of  activities  which  may  amount  to  acts  which  are

inconsistent with the interest of public service and not befitting the status,

position  and  dignity  of  a  public  servant  are  so  varied  that  it  would  be

impossible for the employer to exhaustively enumerate such acts and treat

the categories of misconduct as closed. It has, therefore, to be noted that the

word “misconduct” is not capable of precise definition. But at the same time

though incapable of precise definition, the word “misconduct” on reflection

receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in performance

and  its  effect  on  the  discipline  and  the  nature  of  the  duty.   The  act

complained of must bear a forbidden quality or character and its ambit has

to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein

6

the term occurs,  having regard to the scope of the statute and the public

purpose it seeks to serve.

9. In  Union of India and Ors. v.  Harjeet Singh Sandhu (2001 (5) SCC

593), in the background of Rule 14 of the Army Rules, it was held that any

wrongful act or any act of delinquency which may or may not involve moral

turpitude would be “misconduct” under Rule 14.

10. In Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punnjab and Ors. (2002 (3) SCC

667),  it  was  held  that  the  expression  “misconduct”  means  unlawful

behaviour, misfeasance, wrong conduct, misdemeanour etc.

11. Similarly, in  State of Punjab and Ors. v.  Ram Singh Ex. Constable

(AIR 1992 SC 2188), it was held that the term “misconduct” may involve

moral  turpitude.  It  must  be  improper  or  wrong  behaviour,  unlawful

behaviour, wilful in character, forbidden act, a transgression of established

and  definite  rule  of  action  or  code  of  conduct  but  not  mere  error  of

judgment,  carelessness  or  negligence  in  performance of  the  duty;  the  act

complained of bears forbidden quality or character.

7

12. “Misconduct”  as  stated  in  Batt’s  Law of  Master  and  Servant  (4th

Edition) (at page 63) is “comprised positive acts and not mere neglects or

failures.”   The  definition  of  the  word  as  given  in  Ballentine’s  Law

Dictionary  (148th Edition)  is  “A  transgression  of  some  established  and

definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may

demand, it  is  a  violation  of  definite law, a forbidden act.  It  differs  from

carelessness.”   

13.  It may be generally stated that the conduct rules of the Government

and  public  sector  corporations  constitute  a  code  of  permissible  acts  and

behaviour of their servants.

14. The scheme of the Conduct Rules, almost invariably, is to first of all

enunciate  a  general  rule  of  conduct  and  behaviour  followed  by specific

prohibitions  and  restrictions.  For  example,  Rule  3  of  the  Central  Civil

Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which occurs under the heading “General”

provides that every Government servant shall at all times:

(i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and

(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.

8

The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in M.M. Malhotra v. Union of

India & Ors. [2005(8) SCC 351].

15. The power of the court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is

extremely  restricted  and  only  when  the  relevant  factors  have  not  been

considered the Court can direct re-consideration or in an appropriate case to

certain litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded; and that can only

be in very rare cases.

16. It is evident from record that the prescribed period for filing property

return is six months and though appellant was aware of the requirement he

did not choose to file any return, even during the course of enquiry no return

was filed and ultimately after show cause notice was issued it  was filed.

That  being  so  there  is  no  merit  in  this  appeal  which  is  accordingly

dismissed.

………………………………J.

9

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………J. (ASOK KUAMR GANGULY)

New Delhi, March 05, 2009

10