Supreme Court - Daily Orders
R. Alexander vs Registrar General High Court on 19 February, 2019
Bench: A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1749/2019
(@ SLP(C) No. 15741/2018)
R. ALEXANDER APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at this stage. The appellant was appointed as a Civil Judge vide G.O.MS. No. 1517, Home Department dated 16.11.1999. After necessary training, he was posted as District Munsif, Pollachi, on 10.12.1999. Mr. MS Senthil Kumar, Advocate lodged a complaint dated 21.04.2004 against the appellant when he was posted as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil. The Registrar, Vigilance of the High Court submitted his report to the Administrative Committee of the High Court. The Administrative Committee framed six charges against the appellant pursuant to the report submitted by the said Registrar Signature Not Verified under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2019.02.23 (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Principal District Judge, 11:24:04 IST Reason:
Cuddalore was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the Administrative 2 Committee. The Inquiry Officer held charge nos. 1 and 3 as proved and charge nos. 2 and 4 to 6 as not proved. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant. The Administrative Committee considered the explanation offered by the appellant but the same was not found to be acceptable and imposed the punishment of removal from service on the appellant.
Two important and pertinent aspects which stand out from the aforesaid discussion may be recapitulated. These are as under:
1) Charge No. 1 against the appellant was that he had travelled along with Mr. MS Senthil Kumar, Advocate (who himself was the complainant), Thirugnanam and one Gopal by Taxi to Coimbatore to give evidence in a sessions case and he also stayed at a hotel at the expenses of the above persons. The defense of the appellant to the aforesaid charge was that he had in fact travelled by bus to Coimbatore; while in Coimbatore he had stayed with his sister and returned journey was also undertaken by bus. It is a matter of record that the appellant had gone to Coimbatore to give evidence in a sessions case which was his official journey, he had claimed travelling allowance ('TA') for the said journey. It is also a matter of record that this TA was duly approved, sanctioned and paid to the appellant. Along with TA bill the appellant would have submitted bus tickets to show that he had undertaken the journey to Coimbatore and back. During the inquiry the appellant made a specific request to the Inquiry Officer for summoning the said record of TA bill submitted by him. It is also a matter of record that the Inquiry Officer passed a specific order directing the 3 management to summon the TA Register. However, it was not produced.
On that basis, the precise argument of appellant before the High Court was that it had caused serious prejudice to him. This argument is rejected on the ground that in reply to the charge sheet the appellant had not made any whisper about the said TA bill. At the fag end of the inquiry the appellant had requested for summoning of the said register. This is hardly a reason to reject the argument in respect of non-summoning of the register. As noted above, the charge against the appellant was that the appellant had travelled along with the complainant and two other persons by Taxi to Coimbatore. The appellant had denied this charge and in order to show that this charge was misconceived, he wanted record relating to TA bill to be produced. We find that on the one hand there is oral statement of the complainant and as against that the appellant wanted documentary evidence to be brought on record in order to show that he had not travelled along with the complainant but had travelled in a bus. Therefore, we do not agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the High Court that non-production of the said record has not caused any prejudice to the appellant.
2) It is also an accepted position that after the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Administrative Committee of the High Court, copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the appellant at that stage and no opportunity was given to him to make his representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Instead the Administrative Committee accepted the said report and only thereafter the copy of the inquiry report was 4 sent to the appellant along with show cause notice whereby the appellant was asked to show cause as to why penalty of dismissal be not inflicted upon him. It is clear from the above that the show cause notice pertained only to the punishment insofar as the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are concerned, the appellant was not given any opportunity before the said findings were accepted by the Administrative Committee. Only, after the submission of the reply to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority considered the question of quantum of punishment. Therefore, insofar as acceptance of findings of the Inquiry Officer by the Administrative Committee without giving prior opportunity to show cause against that is concerned, the appellant has been prejudiced. We make this comment having regard to the representation which was submitted by the appellant. A perusal of the said representation reflects that the appellant had specifically mentioned as to how the complainant had developed grudge against him inasmuch as in various cases the complainant had appeared before the appellant. Some of the orders which were passed by the appellant in those cases were not of the liking of the complainant and because of this reason the complainant had made the complaint against the appellant. The appellant had also brought on record the conduct of the said advocate/complainant who had been indulging in the practice of making such complaints which have been deprecated by the High Court also on previous occasions. The appellant had also submitted that the other witnesses were close relatives of the complainant and, therefore, they were the interested witnesses. Obviously, this defense of the appellant was 5 not looked into by the Administrative Committee as the Administrative Committee had already decided to accept the findings without giving opportunity to the appellant to make a representation against the inquiry report. We, therefore, are of the firm opinion that non-grant of opportunity in the aforesaid circumstances has also caused prejudice to the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that no prejudice was caused to the appellant and, therefore, reliance upon the judgments of this Court in “Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. vs. Karunakar & Ors.” (1993)4 SCC 727 and “Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja” (2008)9 SCC 31 is of no avail to the respondents. On the contrary in these very judgments it is held that non-grant of opportunity in respect of the findings of the Inquiry Officer leads to violation of principles of nature justice. Once this violation is found, coupled with the fact that it has caused prejudice to the appellant as well, those very judgments would rather support the case of the appellant.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. As a consequence, the Government Order i.e. G.O.(D) No. 1012 dated 08.12.2012 imposing the punishment of removal of the appellant in service is set aside with all consequential benefits of pay during the intervening period etc. However, it would be open to the High Court to proceed from the stage by furnishing a copy of the inquiry 6 report to the appellant and giving him an opportunity to make a representation against the said findings.
......................J. [A.K. SIKRI] ......................J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER] ......................J. [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 19, 2019.
7
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1749/2019
(@ SLP(C) No. 15741/2018)
R. ALEXANDER Appellant(s)
VERSUS
REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 19-02-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Appellant(s) Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Adv.
Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T. Archana, Adv.
Mr. S.D. Venkateswaran, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv.
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. S. Partha Sarathi, Adv.
Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(ASHWANI KUMAR) (RAJINDER KAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)