http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAM KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1987

BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2043            1987 SCR  (3)1057  1987 SCC  Supl.  582     JT 1987 (3)   357  1987 SCALE  (2)340

ACT:     Civil    Services:    Departmental    enquiry--Punishing authority  accepting finding of Enquiry Officer and  reasons in support of finding--Order of termination by a  non-speak- ing order--Whether valid.

HEADNOTE:     The  service  of  the appellant, a  bus  conductor,  was terminated consequent upon the enquiry conducted into  alle- gations  of non-issue of tickets to nine passengers,  though fare  was collected from each of them. A suit filed  by  the appellant,  contending  that the order  of  termination  was illegal and void and was opposed to the principles of  natu- ral  justice, as no reason was given in the order, was  dis- missed  by the trial court. It was also held that the  Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.     The Additional District Judge, on appeal, held that  the Civil  Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the  suit and  set aside the impugned order of termination as  invalid as it was a non-speaking order not containing any reason.     In second appeal, the High Court affirmed the finding of the Additional District Judge as to the jurisdiction of  the Civil  Court,  but set aside his finding that  the  impugned order  was a non-speaking order and held that it  was  quite legal and valid.     In  the appeal to this Court it was contended on  behalf of  the appellant that the punishing authority had  not  ap- plied his mind before passing the impugned order, which  was apparent  from the fact that he had not given any reason  in justification  thereof  and this had vitiated  the  impugned order of termination. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  When  the  punishing authority  agrees  with  the findings  of  the Enquiry Officer who  accepts  the  reasons given  by him in support of such findings, it is not  neces- sary for the punishing authority to again 1058 discuss  evidence and come to the same findings as  that  of the Enquiry Officer and give the same reasons for  the-find- ings. [1060E]     In  the  instant case, it is difficult to say  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

punishing authority had not applied his mind. The  punishing authority has placed reliance upon the report of the Enquiry Officer,  which means he has not only agreed with the  find- ings  of the Enquiry Officer but also accepted  the  reasons given by him for the same. When the punishing authority  has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reasons given by him, the question of non-compliance with the  prin- ciples of natural justice does not arise. [1060E-F]     It  cannot  be  said that the impugned order  is  not  a speaking order and is vitiated. [1060F]     [In view of the fact that it is the first offence of the appellant, who is said to be the father of five minor  chil- dren  and has no other means of livelihood,  the  respondent may consider the re-employment of the appellant to the  post of Conductor or to any other post, to which he may be  found to be suitable.] [1060G-H]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1870  of 1982.     From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1981 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1556 of 1980. V.M. Tarkunde and Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.      S.C. Mohanta, Mahavir Singh and C.V. Subba Rao for  the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DUTT, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant, a Bus Conductor of the Haryana Roadways, has challenged  the validity  of the order of termination of his service on  the ground  of  failure of the punishing authority to  give  any reason for the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice.      A charge was levelled against the appellant that he did not issue tickets to nine passengers, although he had  taken the  fare from each of them. A disciplinary  proceeding  was started against the appellant. The 1059 Enquiry  Officer, after considering the allegations  consti- tuting the charge, the plea of the appellant in defence  and the evidence adduced by the parties including the appellant, held  that the charge against the appellant was proved.  The punishing authority agreed with the findings of the  Enquiry Officer and by the impugned order terminated the service  of the appellant.     Aggrieved,  the appellant filed a suit  challenging  the legality  of the order of termination. It was  contended  by the  appellant that as no reason was given in  the  impugned order,  it  was  illegal and invalid being  opposed  to  the principles of natural justice. The Trial Court overruled the said  contention and also held that the Civil Court  had  no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.     On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held in disagreement  with  the  Trial Court and,  in  our  opinion, rightly  that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to  entertain and  try  the suit. The learned Additional  District  Judge, however,  held  that the impugned order was  a  non-speaking order  not  containing any reason and, as such, it  was  in- valid.  In that view of the matter, the  learned  Additional Judge  allowed  the appeal, set aside the  judgment  of  the Trial Court and the impugned order of termination of service of the appellant and decreed the suit.     The  State of Haryana took the matter to the High  Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

in  a second appeal. The High Court affirmed the finding  of the learned Additional District Judge as to the jurisdiction of  the  Civil  Court, but set aside his  finding  that  the impugned order was a non-speaking order. The High Court took the view that the impugned order was quite legal and  valid. Upon  the said findings. the High Court allowed  the  appeal and  set aside the judgment and decree of the learned  Addi- tional District Judge. Hence this appeal by special leave.     It  has  been  urged by Mr.  Tarkunde,  learned  Counsel appearing  on  behalf of the appellant, that  the  punishing authority  has not applied his mind before passing  the  im- pugned  order, which is apparent from the fact that  he  had not given any reason in justification of the impugned order. Counsel submits that non-application of the mind and failure to  give any reason by the punishing authority vitiated  the impugned order of termination and, accordingly, it should be set aside. It has been pointed out by the High Court that the punishing 1060 authority  has  passed a lengthy order  running  into  seven pages  mentioning therein the contents of the  charge-sheet, the detailed deposition of the witnesses, as accorded by the Enquiry  Officer, and the findings of the  Enquiry  Officer. The  explanation  submitted by the appellant has  also  been reproduced in the impugned order. Thereafter, the  punishing authority stated as follows:-               "I have considered the charge-sheet, the reply               filed to the charge-sheet, the statements made               during  enquiry,  the report  of  the  Enquiry               Officer,  the  show cause  notice,  the  reply               filed  by the delinquent and other papers  and               that no reason is available to me on the basis               of  which  reliance may not be placed  on  the               report  of  the  Enquiry  Officer.  Therefore,               keeping these circumstances in view, I  termi-               nate his service with effect from the date  of               issue of this order."     In  view  of the contents of the impugned order,  it  is difficult  to say that the punishing authority had  not  ap- plied  his mind to the case before terminating the  services of  the appellant. The punishing authority has placed  reli- ance upon the report of the Enquiry Officer which means that he  has  not only agreed with the findings  of  the  Enquiry Officer, but also has accepted the reasons given by him  for the  findings. In our opinion, when the punishing  authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and  accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it  is not  necessary for the punishing authority to again  discuss evidence  and come to the same findings as that of  the  En- quiry Officer and give the same reasons for the findings. We are  unable to accept the contention made on behalf  of  the appellant that the impugned order of termination is vitiated as  it  is  a non-speaking order and does  not  contain  any reason.  When by the impugned order the punishing  authority has  accepted  the findings of the Enquiry Officer  and  the reason given by him, the question of non-compliance with the principles  of  natural justice does not arise. It  is  also incorrect  to say that the impugned order is not a  speaking order.     There  is,  therefore, no substance in the  appeal.  The appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as  to costs.     In view of the fact that it is the first offence of  the appellant, who is said to be the father of five minor  chil- dren  and has no other means of livelihood,  the  respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

may consider the re-employment of the appellant to the  post of Conductor or to any other post, to which he may be  found to be suitable. N.P.V.                                                Appeal dismiss.ed. 1061