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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  422 of 2007

PETITIONER: Tej Pal Singh

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2007

BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)NO.44/2004)

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

       Leave granted.         Heard both sides.  The appellant Tej Pal Singh is also  present in Court.  In this matter, a penalty of removal from  service was imposed on the appellant.  Against the removal  order, the appellant filed an appeal, which was dismissed.   Later he challenged the said order before the Tribunal and a  further review was also filed.  The Tribunal and the Reviewing  Authority have also dismissed the respective petitions.   Thereupon, he moved a writ petition invoking jurisdiction of the  High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.  The High  Court also, for the reasons set out at page 4 & 5 of its order,  dismissed the writ petition.  We have perused the order passed  by the High Court and other connected records.                  When the matter came up for hearing on 18.10.2006,  this Court passed the following order: "Prima facie, we are of the view that the petitioner  had not been afforded proper opportunity to defend  himself inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had refused  to summon the witnesses cited by the workman.   The dispute has been going on for the last 15 years.   It would not be in the interest of justice to start the  proceedings all over again.  We have suggested to  the counsel for the parties to settle the dispute for  which they seek time.         Adjourned by four weeks."

       Again the matter was listed before this Bench on  15.11.2006, when the court passed the following order: "A letter is circulated by Mr. Praveen Jain,  Advocate for the petitioner that the settlement  between the parties is likely to taken some more  time and hence he requested that the matter  may be adjourned by six weeks.  Learned ASG  appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of  India also made the similar request as,  according to him, the competent authority who  has to approve the terms of settlement is not  available now.         The matter is adjourned by four weeks  for reporting settlement."

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

       Today, the matter is listed before us for reporting  settlement.         Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, on  instruction from the respondent, submitted that even though  the appellant has lost before almost all the forums, the  respondents, taking a lineant view of the matter and also as per  the directions of this Court, have considered the matter on  sympathetic ground and are ready and willing to pay the last  drawn salary of Rs.1672/- p.m. for the last ten years.  The total  amount comes to Rs.2,00,640/-.  In our opinion, the said sum of  Rs.2,00,640/- is inadequate.

       We, therefore, direct the respondents herein and in  particular respondent no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-  (Rupees three lakhs only) in full quit of all the claims by the  appellant.  We make it clear that the appellant shall not be  entitled to any other payment from the respondents.  The  respondents are directed to pay the said sum of Rs.3 lakhs  within six weeks from today, failing which the said amount  shall carry interest at 18% till the date of payment.  The said  sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall be paid  by way of Demand Draft  payable at Kapurthala and drawn in the name of the appellant  herein, namely, Tej Pal Singh.  The appellant is directed to  collect the Demand Draft from the respondent-in-person.

       The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.  No  costs.