12 April 1996
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs HARBHAJAN SINGH GREASY

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-007530-007530 / 1996
Diary number: 76168 / 1994
Advocates: Vs ASHOK MATHUR


1

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

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. HARBHAJAN SINGH GREASY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/04/1996

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

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   403        1996 SCALE  (4)195

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have  heard  learned  counsel  on  both  sides,  The respondent was  charged for  being absent  from duty  in the Emergency of attending on the flood victims between July 18, 1975 and  July 21,  1975. He  was further  charged for other derelictions of duty. The details are not necessary. Suffice it to  state that  enquiry was  conducted  and  the  Enquiry Officer  submitted  his  report  that  respondent  No.1  had admitted that  he was  having a  private  practice  at  Moga during  the  period  of  his  suspension  in  spite  of  the directions issued  by the Government in the suspension order to remain  at Head-quarter.  Accordingly,  the  disciplinary authority  removed   him  from  service  which  came  to  be challenged in  the High  Court.  The  learned  single  Judge allowed the  writ petition  and directed  reinstatement with consequential  benefits   On  appeal   the  Division   Bench confirmed the  same in the impugned order dated November 17, 1993 in  L.P.A. No.398/92.  Thus,  this  appeal  by  special leave .      It is  seen that  the Enquiry Officer’s report is based on the  alleged  admission  made  by  the  respondent.  But, unfortunately,  the   Enquiry  Officer  has  not  taken  his admission in  writing .  Subsequently,  the  respondent  has denied having  made any admission . As against the denial of the delinquent,  we have  only the  statement of the Enquiry Officer which  is not  supported by any statement in writing taken from  the respondent.  Under those circumstances, High Court may  be  justified  in  setting  aside  the  order  of dismissal. It  is now well settled law that when the enquiry was found  to be  faulty, it  could not  be proper to direct reinstatement with  consequential benefits.  Matter requires to be  remitted to  the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure from  the stage at which the fault was pointed out and to  take action  according to  law. Pending  enquiry the delinquent must  be  deemed  to  be  under  suspension.  The

2

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

consequential benefits  would depend  upon the result of the enquiry  and  order  passed  thereon.  The  High  Court  had committed illegality in omitting to give the said direction. Since the respondent had retired from service, now no useful purpose will  be served  in  directing  to  conduct  enquiry afresh. However,  the respondent is not entitled to the back wages as  he voided  responsibility as  a Doctor to treat on flood victims and that was cause for the suspension      The  appeal   is   accordingly   allowed.   No   costs. Disallowance of the back wages would not stand in the way of computation  of   the  pensionary  benefits  as  if  he  had continued in service.