Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Edcil India Ltd vs G.L. Sagar on 3 November, 2025
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.16 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).30527/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-05-2025
in LPA No.290/2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]
EDCIL INDIA LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
G.L. SAGAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 223161/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
IA No. 223162/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 03-11-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR
Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Gautam, Adv.
Ms. Shikha John, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.D. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Sinha, AOR
Mrs. Meenu Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ram Kripal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay in refiling is condoned.
2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The matter is taken up for final disposal.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2025.11.13
3. 19:19:20 IST Reason: Facts shorn of unnecessary details can be crystallized as under:
1
Respondent No.1 herein came to be appointed as a Manager (Projects) in appellant – company in the year 1995 and he was promoted as General Manager (Projects) in the year 2000. He came to be suspended on 12.01.2007 pending disciplinary inquiry. Articles of charges for misbehavior, suppression of facts and abusing his official position came to be issued and Enquiry Officer came to be appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report whereunder the charge of Article-I was held to be not established and Article-II was held to be established and reason thereof was assigned in the inquiry report submitted on 06.06.2008. The delinquent employee submitted his representation against the inquiry report and after considering the reply, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 09.09.2008 which came to be upheld by the appellate authority by order dated 20.02.2009. Challenge laid to the same by respondent No.1 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.11487/2009 was accepted partly or in other words the writ petition came to be allowed by order dated 31.08.2015 in part and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority by observing there was no disagreement note issued by the disciplinary authority to those charges which have not been substantiated by the Enquiry Officer and directed the employer to reinstate the employee with 50% backwages with effect from 09.09.2008 till reinstatement. Aggrieved by the same, the employer filed a Review Petition and also a Letters Patent Appeal, both of which came to be dismissed and so also Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7569/2016 whereunder it was directed to complete the Enquiry within eight weeks and to pay backwages within one week. 2
Pursuant to the same, respondent No.1 - delinquent employee was reinstated on 06.04.2016 and 50% backwages was also paid.
4. It is, thereafter, the disciplinary authority prepared a tentative note of disagreement with regard to the charges held to be not established by the EO and sought for response from the employee – respondent No.1, who sought time to respond to the said note of disagreement note. After having considered the reply submitted by the delinquent employee, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service on 28.05.2016 which again was upheld by the appellate authority by order dated 07.09.2016. The Writ Petition (Civil) No.10023/2016 was filed by the delinquent employee challenging the disagreement note, the finding of the appellate authority and the order of dismissal.
5. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petition accepted the prayer of the petitioner in part, quashed the order of dismissal dated 28.05.2016 by holding disagreement note was with a final opinion and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority. In the interregnum, namely, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, respondent No.1 – delinquent employee retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2017. Letters Patent Appeal No.187/2025 filed by the management came to be dismissed on 10.03.2025 which attained finality. In light of the order of remand passed in LPA No. 187 of 2025, the Disciplinary Authority issued a fresh note of disagreement on 21.04.2025 and scheduled a personal hearing on 01.05.2025. However, the respondent sought time to submit his representation to the disagreement note dated 21.04.2025. Simultaneously, the respondent also filed LPA No. 290 3 of 2025 challenging the order dated 31.01.2025, whereunder it has been observed that the order of dismissal dated 28.05.2016 had been quashed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 10023 of 2016 by order dated 31.01.2025, and that thereafter the respondent is to be deemed to have been in service till his superannuation on 30.11.2017. Hence, the Division Bench by way of interim order has directed payment of retiral benefits by way of an interim direction, which has been assailed by the employer in this petition.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we notice that the learned Single Judge while remanding the matter back to Disciplinary Authority by order dated 31.01.2025, has not expressed any view with regard to continuity of service or payment of retiral benefits. Hence, such a relief if any could have been granted only at the time of final disposal of the appeal by the division bench and it could not have preempted the defence of the employer at the initial stage itself by passing the impugned order. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that High Court committed an error in jumping to a conclusion that the writ petitioner namely, the delinquent employee would be entitled for the relief of grant of retiral benefits only on the ground of appeal filed by the management having been dismissed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and we request the High Court to dispose of the pending Letters Patent Appeal No.290/2025 on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously without being influenced by any of its earlier observations and 4 contentions of both parties in this regard are kept open.
7. Special Leave Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(NEHA GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
5