Holding

Storing the material in a locked room under the officer's exclusive control amounted to misappropriation, and compulsory retirement was a proportionate penalty, so the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, an Assistant Supervisor in a military farm, was charged with misappropriating 320 kg of soda‑bicarbonate, failing to feed the material to the animals under his charge (resulting in the death of three animals), and willfully disobeying a superior's order. A departmental inquiry, conducted in accordance with natural‑justice principles, found him guilty on all three counts and imposed compulsory retirement. The appellant challenged the finding of misappropriation, arguing that the material was stored in a room under his exclusive control rather than his quarters, and contended that compulsory retirement was a harsh penalty. The Supreme Court held that retaining the material in a locked room under his sole control amounted to misappropriation, that the misconduct was serious, and that compulsory retirement was a proportionate punishment. The Court also affirmed that the departmental inquiry complied with procedural fairness and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether storing the soda‑bicarbonate in a room under the officer's exclusive control constitutes misappropriation.
Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is excessive for the alleged misconduct.
Whether the departmental inquiry adhered to the principles of natural justice.
Whether the factual error in the High Court’s description of the location of the material affects the finding of misappropriation.

Subjects

service lawcompulsory retirementmisappropriationdepartmental inquirynatural justicemilitary farmdisciplinary actionnegligence

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 312

A SURENDER KUMAR
II_
v. _....
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3811 of 2005)
OCTOBER 21, 2009
--
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

,,
Service Law: Compulsory retirement - Delinquent officer, ).'.'
Assistant Supervisor in Military Farm - Material (Soda-bi-
c carbonate) entrusted to him for feeding the animals -
Delinquent officer instead of feeding the material to the
animals, stored it in a room exclusively in his possession - .
Three animals died as they were not fed with the said material
- Order of compulsory retirement - Held: The delinquent
D officer failed to give explanation as to why huge quootity of. ~
320 Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate was kept in the premises which
was exclusively in his possession - He was thus guilty of
misappropriating the material and jeopardizing the health of
animals - Punishment of compulsory retirement was not
E harsh considering the serious misconduct.
Appellant was working as an Assistant Supervisor in
Military Farm. He was served with chargesheet wherein
it was alleged that he had misappropriated about 320 Kg: -t ~
of Soda-bi-carbonate; that he had failed to feed the '
F animals in his charge with the said Soda-bi-carbonate as
a result of which he jeopardized the health of the animals
and that he willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of his
superior officer. After departmental inquiry, he was
awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement.
G .P.ppellate Authority, CAT and High Court upheld the order
-
of compulsory retirement. Hence the present appeal. ).-
..
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

312
H
SURENDER KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 313

HELD: 1. It is true that there is a factual error in the A
.- ' High Court's judgment inasmuch as the material was not
...." found in the quarter of appellant but in the place of which
he alone was in-charge. It is clear from the record that the
concerned officer took this material on day-to-day basis
to feed to the animals in the military farm and instead of B
feeding the material to the animals, he stored it in the UPI
room which was exclusively in his possession and under
.. , his lock and key. This would certain!¥ amount to
~
misappropriation as the said material was meant for the
consumption of the animals on the military farm on day- c
today basis and the animals were npt given the said
1

material for their consumption. There could be no
)
explanation on the part of the delinquent officer why the
huge quantity of 320 Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate was kept
in the premises which was exclusively in his possession. D
~
[Para 2] [315-B-E]

- 1.2. Soda-bi-carbonate was meant for the animals
and those animals suffered because of the fact that the
Soda-bi-carbonate was not fed to them and 3 animals are
reported to have died. Hence the charge No. 2 also stood E
fully proved. There can be no dispute about third charge
also which was rightly held established. If that is so, the
... t punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be termed
r as "harsh" considering the serious misconduct. The

-- departmental inquiry was conducted keeping in view the F
norms of the natural justice and the fair play. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was
refused any opportunity to represent himself effectively
before the Inquiry Officer or the Appellate Authority. In fact
the only scope in such cases is to examine the manner G
in which the departmental enquiry is conducted. [Para 3]
_, -( [315-F-H;316-A-B]

CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3811 of 2005.
H
....
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A From the Judgment §t. Order dated 3.3.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7570 of
2003.

P.N. Misra, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Appellant.
B
. Indira Jaisingh, ASG, Naresh Kaushik, Ashok K.
Srivastava, Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of
an employee who was working as Assistant Supervisor, Military
Farm. He was served with chargesheet wherein it was alleged
firstly that he had misappropriated about 320 Kg. of Soda-bi-
carbonate; secondly, that he had failed to feed the animals in
his charge with the said Soda-bi-carbonate as a result of which
0
he had jeopardi;zed the health of the animals and thirdly, that
he had willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of his superior
officer. The Officer In-charge ordered him to hand over all the
charge of cattle yard section to Mr. Birbal Sharma which he
failed to do. Regular departmental inquiry was conducted
E wherein the delinquent officer was given all the opportunities
to defend himself as also all the necessary documents were
supplied to him and after hearing him in full, he was found guilty
on all the three counts. He was awarded the punishment of
compulsory retirement. An appeal was filed by the delinquent
F officer against the said penalty which was dismissed. Hence
the delinquent officer moved the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Central Administrative Tribunal also agreed with the
findings as also the punishment awarded by the department.
Further a writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court.
G However that writ petition was also dismissed .
..
2. Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the delinquent officer firstly urged that there is some
factual mistake in the judgment of the High Court inasmuch as
H it is mentioned that the aforementioned 320 Kg. of Soda-bi-
SURENDER KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 315
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
carbonate was found in his "quarter" whereas in fact the said A
j
material was not found in his quarter but was found in the UPI
room. We have seen the orders of the High Court as well as
the authorities below. It is true that.there is a factual error in the
High Court's judgment inasmuch as it is mentioned that the
Ii' aforementioned material was found in his quarter. It is also true B
that the material was not found in his quarter but in the place
.,
of which he alone was In-charge. Learned cqunsel further
,.' ',
argued that there was no question of any mis-'appropriation
~
inasmuch as the said material was actually not found in his
quarter. Therefore, it could not be said that he misappropriated c
the material. It is clear from the record that the concerned officer
took this material on day-today basis to feed to the animals on
~ the military farm and instead of feeding the material to the
animals, he stored it in the UPI room which was exclusively in
...
his possession and under his lock and key as per the evidence. D
"1 This would certainly amount to misappropriation as the said
material was meant for the consumption of the animals on the
military farm on day-today basis and the animals were not given
rli'
the said material for their consumption. There could be no
explanation on the part of the delinquent officer why the huge
E
quantity of 320 Kg. of Soda-bi-carbonate was kept in the
premises which was exclusively in his possession. Therefore,
·1 we .are not impressed with the contention raised that there was

..
" f no misappropriation.
,,
3. Learned counsel further contended that it may amount F
to negligence on the part of the appellant and therefore the
punishment of compulsory retirement would be harsh
punishment. Soda-bi-carbonate was meant for the poor animals
and those animals suffered because of the fact that the Soda-
,bi-carbon?te was not fed to them and 3 animals are reported G

-
to have died. Hence the charge No. 2 also stood fully proved.
~ There can be no dispute about third charge also which was
(ightly held established. If that is so the punishment of
compulsory retirement cannot be termed as "harsh" considering
the-serious misconduct. We are fully convinced that the H

-
I Lt'

316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A departmental inquiry was conducted keeping in view the norms
of the natural justice and the fair play. There is nothing on record
to suggest that the appellant herein was refused any opportunity -. ~'--

to represent himself effectively before the Inquiry Officer or the
Appellate Authority. In fact the only scope in such cases is to
B examine the manner in which the departmental enquiry is
conducted. We are satisfied with the enquiry in this case.

We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is
accordingly dismissed.

C D.G. Appeal dismissed.

~-

+A

-
)

...
/

'r-

I-

~,