Holding

Termination of the employee’s service cannot be based on another employee’s case and must be preceded by a proper departmental inquiry; consequently, both the termination order and the earlier administrative order were set aside under Article 142.

Summary

Leela Singh was appointed as a lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board on the basis of an experience certificate that was later alleged to be forged. While a vigilance inquiry was pending, she obtained relief from the Board's Administrative Member, who allowed her continuation in service with a deduction of one year's salary. Subsequently, the Board, following a similar case involving another employee, decided to terminate the services of similarly placed employees, including Singh, and her service was terminated. Singh challenged the termination before the High Court, which reinstated her, prompting the Board to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the fraud allegation must be proved through a duly constituted departmental proceeding and that termination could not rely on a decision in another employee’s case. Exercising its power under Article 142, the Court set aside both the termination order and the earlier administrative order, directing the Board to initiate proper departmental proceedings and to reinstate Singh, possibly on suspension, and to refund the deducted salary. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Punjab State Electricity Board could terminate the respondent's services on the basis of a decision in another employee's case without a proper departmental inquiry.
Whether the order of the Administrative Member allowing continuation with salary deduction was valid and enforceable.

Subjects

service lawdepartmental proceedingsexperience certificateforged documenttermination of serviceArticle 142administrative memberreinstatementsuspension

Judgment

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. A
v.
LEELA SINGH

JANUARY 22, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B
~

Service Law : Departmental Proceedings-Experience certificate-
Inquiry regarding genuineness of-Meanwhile Admin.istrative Member of
State Electricity Board ordering the employee concerned to be continued
and to deduct one year's service-Later, in a similar case, Board directing c
termination of services of such employees-Consequently, servic2 of
employee concerned also terminated-Held, services ofemployee concerned
could not have been terminated on basis of decision of Board in the case
of another employee-Board directed to initiate departmental proceedings
against employee concerned-In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 D
of the Constitution, order of Administrative Member of the Board is also
r
set aside-Constitution of India-Article 142.

Respondent was appointed as lineman on the basis of an experience
certificate in regard to genuineness whereof a vigilance inquiry was made.
Meanwhile, on the representation of the respondent, the Administrative E
Member of the appellant-Punjab State Electricity Board, by his order dated
15.6.2001, allowed him to be continued after deducting one year's service.
Later, in a similar case of another employee, the Board directed services
of similarly placed employees to be terminated. Consequently, services of
...._
)-
the respondent were terminated. However, his writ petition was allowed by F
the High Court. Aggrieved, the Board filed the appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The charge against the respondent is that he has committed G
fraud in obtaining the appointment by production of a forged experience

- )
certificate. The said charge was required to be proved in a duly constituted
departmental proceeding. The services of the appellant could not have been
directed to be terminated relying on and/or on the basis of the decision of
the Board in the case of another employee. Interest of justice will be sub-
H
1139
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A served if the appellant-Board is directed to initiate a departmental proceeding
against the resp,ondent herein. Ordered accordingly
[Paras 5 and 6] [1141-D-F]

2. Since the order dated 15.6.2001 of the Administrative Member of
the appellant-Board has been given effect to, in exercise of jurisdiction
B under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the said order is set aside
also having regard to the fact that the Administrative Member of the J..
appellant-Board alone could not have issued the same. This order is being
passed in view of the well settled principle of law that if by reason of setting
aside an illegal order, any other illegality is revived, the Court would be
C entitled to quash both the orders. [Para 7] [1141-G-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 486 of2007.

From the Final Judgment/Order dated 17 .8.2005 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in C.W.P. No. 17530/2004.
D
Satinder S. Gulati, Kamaldeep Kaur and Dr. Kailash Chand for the
Appellants.

Sanjeev .Sharma, Gopal Dutt and A.P. Mohanty for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was ·delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. : l. Leave Granted.

2. Respondent herein was appointed as a Lineman in the Punjab State
F
Electricity Board. He was appointed on the basis of a purported experience
certificate produced by him. A vigilance enquiry was made in regard to the
genuiness thereof. However, before a regular departmental proceeding could
be initiated, the respondent made a representation to the Administrative
Member of the Appellant-Board on 15.6.2001, alleging that as he had been
G appointed long time back and despite the fact that he _had submitted original
certificates as demanded of him, he had not been given promotion and other
financial benefits. The Administrative Member of the appellant-Board directed
that the services of the respondent should be allowed to be continued after ·( "'
deducting one year's service. The said order is said to have been acted
H ·upon.
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. LEELA SINGH [SINHA, J.] 1141

-- ! 3. However, the Chairman of the appellant-Board having come across A
a similar problem in the case of another employee, directed the matter to be
placed before the entire Board. It was decided that the services of similarly
placed employees should be terminated apart from the employee concerned.
Pursuant to the said decision, the services of the respondent herein was also
terminated. The validity of the said order came to be questioned by the
respondent by filing a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High
B
Court which by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 17 .8.2005
has been allowed opinion that in view of the fact the respondent had already
suffered one punishment and his name having not found place in
Memorandum No. 12 dated 16.7.2002 he should be directed to be reinstated
in service with all consequential benefits. The appellant-Board is thus before C
us.

4. The short question which arises for consideration is whether in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the Board could terminate the
services of the respondent. D
...
5. The charge against the respondent is that he has committed fraud
in obtaining the appointment by production of a forged ·experience certificate.
The said charge, in our considered opinion, was required to be proved in
a duly constituted departmental proceeding. The services of the appellant
could not have been directed to be terminated relying on and/or on the basis E
of the decision of the Board in the case of another employee.

6. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice will be
subserved if the appellant-Board is directed to initiate a departmental
proceeding against the respondent herein. F

7. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that the order dated
15.6.2001 of the Administrative Member of the appellant-Board has been
given effect to. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constituti.on of India, set aside the order passed by the
Administrative Member of the appellant-Board also having regard to the G
fact that the Administrative member of the appellant-Board alone could
not have issued the same. This order is being passed in view of the well
settled principles of law that if by reason of setting aside an illegal order,
any other illegality is revived, the Court would be entitled to quash both the
orders. H
--+-
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] I S.C.R.

A 8. For the reasons aforementioned, while setting aside the order of -\

termination passed as against the respondent, we also set aside the order
dated 15.6.2001 passed by the .Administrative Member of the appellant-
Board upon giving liberty to the appellant-Board to initiate a full-fledged
departmental proceedings against the respondent. The respondent may be
reinstated in service but he may be placed under suspension. Appellant
B shall refund the amount which has been deducted from respondent's salary
pursuant to the aforementioned order passed by the Administrative Member
of the appellant-Board in the meanwhile. The appeal is allowed with the )

aforementioned direction.

C R.P. Appeal allowed.