Supreme Court of India

NARAYAN DATTATRAYA RAMTEERTHAKHARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1348
Decided: 20 November 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATIK VENKATASWAMI

Holding

The removal of the petitioner was lawful as he had misappropriated public money and the procedural defect in the preliminary inquiry did not invalidate the disciplinary action.

Summary

The petitioner, a government servant, was found to have misappropriated Rs. 1,440 deducted from employees and only deposited it after being compelled in 1985. An enquiry officer held him guilty of misconduct, leading the disciplinary authority to remove him from service. The petitioner challenged the removal, alleging that he was forced to deposit the money and that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted in accordance with natural justice. The Supreme Court examined whether the alleged procedural defect in the preliminary inquiry could invalidate the subsequent disciplinary proceedings. It held that the petitioner’s own admission of deposit negated the claim of forced payment, and that the preliminary inquiry, being merely a pre‑inquiry, lost relevance after the full enquiry was conducted. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s alleged misappropriation of public money justified his removal from service.
Whether the alleged defects in the preliminary inquiry violated principles of natural justice and vitiated the disciplinary proceedings.
Whether the Tribunal’s order of removal is liable to be set aside by the Supreme Court.

Subjects

service lawremoval from servicemisconductmisappropriation of public moneydisciplinary inquirynatural justicetribunalspecial leave petition

Judgment

          NARAYAN DATTATRAYA RAMTEERTHAKHAR                                   A
                                    v.
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                         NOVEMBER 20, 1996

              [K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANA VATI AND                               B
                     K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

     Service Law :

      Removal from service-Government servant-Misconduct-
Misappropriation of public money-Inquiry officer finding the employee C
guilty-Disciplinary authority removed him from service-Tribunal upheld
the removal order-Pleas of employee that he was forced to deposit the
money and the preliminary inquiry was not properly conducted-Held not
sustainable-There is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal
warranting interference.                                               O

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 23872 of 1996.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.95 of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No. 558 of 1991.                      E

      Jasbir Singh, Malik and Ms. Kamakshi Singh Mehlwal for the
Petitioner.

     The following Order of the Court was delivered :                         F
     Delay condoned.

      The special leave petition arises from the order of Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, made in OA No. 558 of 1991.            G
The finding recorded by all the authorities is that the petitioner has
misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1440 deducted from the employees and had
not deposited until asked to pay the same in 1985. Thereby, the authorities
have concluded that the petitioner has committed misconduct. On that
finding, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty. The disciplinary authority
removed him from service. The Petitioner challenged the order in the          H
                                   939
    940                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS !1996] SUl'I'. 8 S.C.R.


A High Court. The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ
  petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy. The Tribunal found
  that there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the
  disciplinary action. That apait, even on merits also, we do not think that
  there is any case made out for interference. The finding is that the petitioner
  has committed misappropriation of the public money and his removal
B from service is an appropriate order.

         Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner
  has not committed any misappropriation and that he was forced to deposit
  the money. We cannot accept the contention in view of the fact that the
  petitioner himself had deposited the amount. It is then contended that the
C preliminary enquiry was not properly conducted and, therefore, the enquiry
  is vitiated by principles ofnaturaljustice. We find no force in the contention.
  The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted
  after the issue of the charge-sheet. The former action would be to find
  whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent.
  After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its
D importance.

          Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order
    passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The special leave petition
    is accordingly dismissed.
E
    R.P.                                                     Petition dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search