Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Keshav Nathu Makwana vs Union Of India . on 9 October, 2015
Bench: Kurian Joseph, Arun Mishra
ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5722/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02/07/2014
in SCA No. 13473/2010 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad)
KESHAV NATHU MAKWANA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 09/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv.
Ms. Saroj Raichura, Adv.
Mr. Kalp Raichura, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Vats, Adv.
Mr. Haresh Raichura,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sunita Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,Adv.
Mr. N.K. Karhail, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Signed Order.
As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application (s) shall stand disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2015.10.14 (Rajni Mukhi) (Tapan Kumar Chakraborty) 11:39:47 IST Reason: Sr. P.A. Court Master
(Signed Order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8492 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP © No.5722 of 2015) KESHAV NATHU MAKWANA APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS O R D E R Leave granted.
We find that there is no proper consideration by the Competent Authority as to what should be the appropriate punishment for the charge of unauthorized absence. The respondents should also have seen that the petitioner had put 29 years in service and that there is no charge of any other type of misconduct against the appellant.
Though, normally the case should have been sent back for deciding the punishment afresh, having regard to the background of the case and long pending litigation, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed. Hence, for all purposes, the punishment of the appellant is substituted as compulsory retirement instead of removal from service. The appellant shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits.
The appeal stands disposed of.
.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] ......................J. [ARUN MISHRA] NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 09, 2015