REPORTABLE  

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL No. 3811  OF 2005         

SURENDER KUMAR ...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of an employee who was  

working  as  Assistant  Supervisor,  Military  Farm.   He  was  

served with chargesheet wherein it was alleged firstly that  

he had misappropriated about 320 Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate;  

secondly, that he had failed to feed the animals in his  

charge with the said Soda-bi-carbonate as a result of which  

he had jeopardized the health of the animals and thirdly,  

that he had willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of his  

superior officer. The Officer In-charge ordered him to hand  

over all the charge of cattle yard section to  Mr. Birbal  

Sharma which he failed to do.  Regular departmental inquiry  

was conducted wherein the delinquent officer was given all  

the  opportunities  to  defend  himself  as  also  all  the  

necessary documents were supplied  to  him and after hearing

him in full, he was found guilty on  all the  three counts.

-2-

He was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement. An  

appeal was filed by the delinquent officer against the said  

penalty which was dismissed.  Hence the delinquent officer  

moved  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal.  The  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal  also  agreed  with  the  findings  as  

also the punishment awarded by the department.  Further a  

writ  petition  was  filed  before  the  Bombay  High  Court.  

However that writ petition was also dismissed.  

2.  Mr. P.N.Misra, learned senior counsel appearing on  

behalf of the delinquent officer firstly urged that there is  

some  factual  mistake  in  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

inasmuch as it is mentioned that the aforementioned 320 Kg.  

of Soda-bi-carbonate was found in his “quarter” whereas in  

fact the said material was not found in his quarter but was  

found in the UPI room.  We have seen the orders of the High  

Court as well as the authorities below.  It is true that  

there  is  a  factual  error  in  the  High  Court's  judgment  

inasmuch as it is mentioned that the aforementioned material  

was found in his quarter.  It is also true that the material  

was not found in his quarter but in the place of which he  

alone was In-charge.  Learned counsel further argued that  

there was no question of any mis-appropriation inasmuch as

the said material was actually not found in his quarter.  

Therefore, it could not be said that he misappropriated the  

material.  It is clear from the record  that  the concerned

-3-

officer took this material on day-today basis to feed to the  

animals on  the military  farm and  instead of  feeding the  

material to the animals, he stored it in the UPI room which  

was exclusively in his possession and under his lock and key  

as  per  the  evidence.   This  would  certainly  amount  to  

misappropriation  as  the  said  material  was  meant  for  the  

consumption of the animals on the military farm on day-today  

basis and the animals were not given the said material for  

their consumption.  There could be no explanation on the  

part of the delinquent officer why the huge quantity of 320  

Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate was kept in the premises which was  

exclusively  in  his  possession.  Therefore,  we  are  not  

impressed  with  the  contention  raised  that  there  was  no  

misappropriation.  

3.     Learned counsel further contended that it may amount  

to negligence on the part of the appellant and therefore the  

punishment  of  compulsory  retirement  would  be  harsh  

punishment.   Soda-bi-carbonate  was  meant  for  the  poor  

animals and those animals suffered because of the fact that  

the Soda-bi-carbonate was not  fed to them and 3 animals are

reported to have died. Hence the charge No. 2 also stood  

fully proved. There can be no dispute about third charge  

also which was rightly held established.  If that is so the  

punishment  of  compulsory  retirement  cannot  be  termed  as  

“harsh” considering the serious misconduct.  We are fully  

convinced  that  the  departmental  inquiry  was conducted

-4-

keeping in view the norms of the natural justice and the  

fair play.  There is nothing on record to suggest that the  

appellant herein was refused any opportunity to represent  

himself  effectively  before  the  Inquiry  Officer  or  the  

Appellate Authority. In fact the only scope in such cases is  

to examine the manner in which the departmental enquiry is  

conducted. We are satisfied with the enquiry in this case.

We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is  

accordingly dismissed.

              ...................J.                                  (V.S.SIRPURKAR)

             ....................J.                          (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi, October 21, 2009.