THE STATE OF PUNJABversusDARSHAN SINGH
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 267
- Decided
- 15 February 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The removal order is valid as the previous punishments were merely mentioned and not taken into account; the disciplinary authority acted within its powers by basing removal on the proven charge of fraud, with the respondent given a fair hearing.
Summary
Darshan Singh, a bus conductor employed by the State of Punjab, was removed from service on 26 May 1989 for alleged misconduct of collecting fares without issuing tickets, which was deemed fraud. The removal order also listed his earlier punishments, leading the trial court to hold that the authority had considered those prior acts without framing a fresh charge or giving him an opportunity to be heard on them, rendering the order illegal. The High Court affirmed the trial court, and the Second Appeal was dismissed, but the Supreme Court, on special leave, examined whether the disciplinary authority could rely on previous punishments without a specific charge and hearing. The Court held that merely mentioning earlier punishments does not mean they were taken into account; the removal was based solely on the proven charge of fraud, and the respondent had been given reasonable opportunity to defend. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the suit, and ordered no costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the removal order is vitiated by taking into account previous punishments without a specific charge and opportunity to be heard.
- Whether a disciplinary authority may consider prior conduct in a removal decision without framing a fresh charge.
- Whether the removal of Darshan Singh was legally valid under service law.
Subjects
Judgment
THE STATE OF PUNJAB A
v.
DARSHAN SINGH
FEBRUARY 15, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B
Service Law:
Misconduct-Removal from service-Bus conductor collected fares
from passengers but had not issued tickets-In the order of removal previous
punishments were indicated-Held : It does not mean that the previous
c
punishments imposed on him were taken into account-Couns below wrongly
proceeded on the assumption that the disciplinary authority took into con-
sideration the previous conduct without any charge being framed in that
behalf or that no opponunity was given in this behalf.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3776 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.93 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in RS.A. No. 2541of1992.
E
Sanjay Bansal and G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.
The following Order of Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F
On January 11, 1996, since the respondent had not appeared, the
matter was heard ex-parte. However, the appellant was directed to produce
copy of the order dismissing the respondent from service. That order has
.. now been placed on record .•The respondent was removed from service by
the proceedings of the General Manager of the appellant ~m May 26, 1989.
The respondent filed the Suit No. 450/97 questioning it for a declaration
that the order of removal was illegal. The trial Court proceeded on the
G·
finding that the order of removal is based upon the previous conduct of
the respondent which was ·not put in issue before he was removed from
service. Therefore, the order is vitiated by error of law. That was upheld
by the appellate Court. The Second Appeal was dismissed summarily. Thus H
745
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 2 S.C.R.
A this appeal is by special leave.
. The order of removal clearly indicates that· the charge was framed
on the basis that he committed misconduct in collecting fares from the
passengers but had not issued the tickets to them. Evidence was adduced
after giving reasonable opportunity and it was found that the defence of
B the respondent was not proved. As a consequence, it was held in para-
graph 5 that "in view of foregoing discussions, the charge of committing
fraud to the tune of Rs. 7.50 ps. against Shri Darshan Singh, C. is estab-
lished." In view of that finding, the respondent was removed from service.
While communicating the order, they have indicated the previous punish-
C ments he had to his credit. That does not mean that they have taken into
account those previous punishments imposed on him. The courts below,
therefore, have wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the disciplinary
authority had taken into consideration the previous conduct without any
charge being framed in that behalf or that no opportunity was given to the
· respondent in this behalf.
D
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed. No
costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.