Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusB.N. SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: 1995 INSC 911
Decided: 15 December 1995
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the case did not warrant interference under Article 136 as the officer's integrity was not in doubt and his service record was exemplary.

Summary

The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had given certain directions to the respondent officer. The Court examined the service record of the first respondent, noting that his career was outstanding both before and after the period in question and that his integrity had never been questioned. The petitioners argued that the CAT's order warranted Supreme Court interference. The Court held that, given the exemplary record and lack of any doubt about the officer's integrity, the matter did not merit interference under Article 136. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the present circumstances.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the CAT's direction when the officer's integrity and service record are unimpeached.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 136

Subjects

Article 136Supreme Court reviewCentral Administrative Tribunalservice recordintegrity of officerinterferenceadministrative law

Judgment

A                        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
                                                                                  .
                                        v.
                             B.N. SINGH AND ORS.

                              DECEMBER 15, 1995

B               [K. RAM~SWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

          Constitution of India.

         Article 136-0rder of Central Administrative Tribunal-Based on ser-
C vice record of employee-Held, not a case waTTanting inteiference.

         The Union of India tiled the present appeal against the order of the
    Tribunal giving the appellant certain directions.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court
D
           HELD : On perusal of the record, it is seen that except during the
    relevant period, either previous or subsequent to the period, the first
    respondent was outstanding career and the records are very good. The
    integrity of the officer has n~t been doubted. Under these circumstances,
    it is not a case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitu-
E   lion. [790-H, 791-A]

          CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12075
    of 1995.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.95 of the Central Ad-
F   ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1506 of 1989.

          N.N. Goswami, Heman! Sharma and S.N. Terdol for the Appellants.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G         Leave granted.

          We have called for the record to satisfy ourselves whether the
    Tribunal was justified in giving the direction in the impugned order. On
    perusal of the record, it is seen that except during the relevant period,
H   either previous or subsequent to the period, the first respondent has
                                        790
                                U.0.l. v. B.N. SINGH                        791

    outstanding career and the records are very good. The integrity of the         A
    officer has not been doubted. Under these circumstances, we think that it
    is not a case warranting our interference under Article 136 of the Constitu-
    tion.

            The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
                                                                                   B
    R.P .                                                    Appeal dismissed.




•

Search Indian case law

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

Try "Article 136"Sign in to search