Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSHARVAN KUMAR
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 1307
- Decided
- 6 July 2022
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- DINESH MAHESHWARI
Holding
A time limit fixed by a tribunal for completing disciplinary proceedings, unless expressly made a condition of abatement, does not cause the proceedings to lapse on expiry, and the tribunal’s order is to be restored.
Summary
The respondent, a railway driver, was initially removed from service for a signal violation, a penalty later reduced to pay downgrading, and the disciplinary orders were subsequently quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which ordered the matter to be reheard within two months. The disciplinary authority failed to complete the rehearing within the two‑month period and the respondent argued that the proceedings had abated and became a nullity, a view upheld by the Calcutta High Court which set aside the CAT order and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Union of India appealed, contending that the time limit was merely procedural and not a condition of abatement, and that the Tribunal retained power to extend the period. The Supreme Court held that a time limit fixed by a tribunal, absent an explicit direction that proceedings would abate on expiry, does not render the proceedings void and the Tribunal’s order was proper. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside, the CAT order restored, and the respondent was permitted to file an appeal against the disciplinary order dated 17‑02‑2011.
Issues considered
- Whether disciplinary proceedings automatically abate and become a nullity if not completed within a time limit fixed by a tribunal without an explicit direction of abatement.
- Whether a conditional time order without a stated consequence of default is a mandatory statutory mandate or can be extended by the tribunal or a higher authority.
- Whether the Calcutta High Court erred in setting aside the CAT order and treating the proceedings as nullity.
- Whether the respondent is entitled to prefer an appeal against the disciplinary order dated 17‑02‑2011.
Subjects
service lawdisciplinary proceedingstime limitabatementtribunalconditional orderenlargement of timeback wagesrailway
Judgment
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 445 445
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
SHARVAN KUMAR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1942 of 2014)
JULY 06, 2022 B
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Service Law – High Court held that the remitted proceedings
in the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent were rendered
nullity, for having not been concluded within the time limit fixed by
C
the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 03.09.2010 – Correctness of
– Held: Fixing of the period of two months by the Tribunal in this
case had only been to ensure expeditious proceedings because the
matter was being restored for reconsideration in the year 2010,
though the disciplinary proceedings related with the incident dated
09.01.2005 – However, the said period of two months did not acquire D
any status akin to that of a statutory mandate that the disciplinary
proceedings would have automatically come to an end with its expiry
– Proceedings in question neither abated nor could have been
considered nullity only because of passage of the expected time
period stated in the order of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2010 – There
E
was no reason or justification for the High Court to interfere with
the just and proper order passed by the Tribunal on 21.06.2013
which inter alia held that the proceedings pursuant to the order dated
03.09.2010 would have abated only if it was so directed in specific
terms and not otherwise – Impugned order set aside and the order
dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Tribunal is restored. F
Service Law – Conditional orders passed by Court/Tribunal
to do something within a particular period, without providing
consequence of default – Enlargement of such time – Permissibility
of – Discussed.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court G
HELD: 1.1 Neither the approach of the High Court nor its
conclusion could be endorsed. The propositions of the High Court,
treating the proceedings in question as having abated or having
been rendered nullity cannot be approved from any standpoint.
H
445
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A It appears that the High Court has taken the period of two months
for completion of the proceedings, as stated in the order of the
Tribunal dated 03.09.2010, to be an inflexible mandate as also of
fatal consequence in the manner that after its expiry, the
department could not have taken the disciplinary proceedings to
their logical conclusion. This approach of the High Court cannot
B
be supported even from a technical standpoint and obviously
stands at conflict with the substance of the matter. After the
respondent was awarded the penalty of removal from service by
the order dated 23.02.2006 in conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings, he challenged the same and the Appellate Authority,
C by its order dated 23.08.2006, altered the penalty to that of
downgrading his pay. The Revisional Authority by its order dated
14.03.2007 held that the negligence on the part of the respondent
was established and found no reason to interfere. However, the
Tribunal, in the earlier round of litigation, while dealing with OA
No. 373 of 2007, chose not to examine the other material
D
questions involved in the matter but, disapproved the imposition
of penalty on the respondent for the reason that the person acting
as the Disciplinary Authority had been one of the members who
had earlier submitted the joint enquiry report. In this view of the
matter, the Tribunal quashed the orders passed against the
E respondent but, being conscious of the fact that the disciplinary
proceedings were otherwise required to be taken to the logical
conclusion, issued directions to ensure that the matter be dealt
with by the Disciplinary Authority other than the person who had
been a member of the joint enquiry team and the proceedings be
taken up from the stage of consideration of representation of the
F
respondent against the report of the Enquiry Officer. While
concluding on the matter, the Tribunal also expected that such
afresh exercise be completed within two months of the receipt of
the order, after leaving all other contentions open. As noticed,
the appellants attempted to seek enlargement of time in view of
G the fact that the exercise could not be completed within the said
period of two months but, this prayer for enlargement was declined
by the Tribunal not on its merits but, for a different reason that
the particulars like the time-frame laid down by the Railway Board
for taking the decision on the enquiry report was not stated before
it. The said order expecting conclusion of the proceedings within
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHARVAN KUMAR 447
two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order was A
passed on 03.09.2010; the application seeking enlargement was
dismissed on 03.01.2011; and the Disciplinary Authority passed
its order on 17.02.2011. Thus, the question was about the status
of such order so passed by the Disciplinary Authority beyond the
period fixed by the Tribunal which had not been enlarged. The
B
Tribunal in its order dated 21.06.2013 held that the proceedings
pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2010 would have abated only if
it was so directed in specific terms and not otherwise. The Tribunal
had been correct in this approach and the High Court has
unjustifiably interfered with the just and proper order passed by
the Tribunal. [Paras 7-9][457-F-H; 458-A-H; 459-A] C
1.2 Fixing of the period of two months by the Tribunal in
this case had only been to ensure expeditious proceedings
because the matter was being restored for reconsideration in
the year 2010, though the disciplinary proceedings related with
the incident dated 09.01.2005. However, the said period of two D
months did not acquire any status akin to that of a statutory
mandate that the disciplinary proceedings would have
automatically come to an end with its expiry. It remains trite that
if an Adjudicating Authority in exercise of its jurisdiction could
grant or fix a time period to do a particular thing, in the absence
of a specific statutory provision to the contrary, the jurisdiction E
to fix such a time period inhers the jurisdiction to extend the
time initially fixed. Such conditional orders have regularly been
construed by this Court to be in terrorem so as to put a check on
the dilatory tactics by any litigant or to guard against any laxity
on the part of the Adjucating Authority but, the Court is not F
powerless to enlarge the time even though it had peremptorily
fixed the period at any earlier stage. When a conditional order is
passed by the Court/Tribunal to do a particular act or thing within
a particular period but the order does not provide anything as to
the consequence of default, the Court/Tribunal fixing the time
for doing a particular thing obviously retains the power to enlarge G
such time. As a corollary, even the Appellate Court/Tribunal or
any higher forum would also be having the power to enlarge such
time, if so required. In any case, it cannot be said that the
proceedings would come to an end immediately after the expiry
H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A of the time fixed. In the present case, even the order dismissing
the application for enlargement of time on a technical ground of
not placing before the Tribunal instructions of the Railway Board,
had again been not of giving any such status of mandatory and
rigid character to the period originally fixed that the proceedings
would have abated. [Paras 9.1-9.3][459-B-D, F-H; 460-A-B]
B
Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das [1961] 3 SCR 763 –
relied on.
1.3 While treating the proceedings as having abated and as
nullity, the High Court has ignored the fundamental principles
C that fixing of such time period was only a matter of procedure
with an expectation of conclusion of the proceedings in an
expeditious manner. This period of two months had not acquired
any such mandatory statutory character so as to nullify the entire
of the disciplinary proceedings with its expiry. Moreover, when
no consequence of default was stated in the order dated
D 03.09.2010, the period as stated therein was only of expectations
and not of mandate. Very many times, such fixing of time period
causes more complications and harm rather than serving the cause
of justice. Fixing of such period could only be justified if there
are strong and compelling reasons for the same; and if at all such
E period is proposed to be fixed, not only the reasons for the same
but, even the consequences of default are also required to be
stated if such period is, for any valid reason, expected to operate
with adverse consequences on the defaulter. The proceedings in
question neither abated nor could have been considered nullity
only because of passage of the expected time period stated in
F the order of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2010. There was no reason
or justification for the High Court to interfere with the just and
proper order passed by the Tribunal on 21.06.2013, which
deserves to be restored with necessary consequential directions.
[Paras 10-11][460-B-F]
G 1.4 The impugned order dated 30.08.2013 is set aside and
the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Tribunal is restored.
Resultantly, it would be permissible for the respondent to prefer
an appeal against the order dated 17.02.2011 before the Appellate
Authority. Before concluding, one more aspect is required to be
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHARVAN KUMAR 449
dealt with; it relates to the payment of 50% back wages to the A
respondent and furnishing of security of immoveable property by
him in terms of the order passed by this Court on 14.08.2015. It
is informed that such payment has been made and the respondent
has received the same while furnishing the requisite security.
Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the said order
B
dated 14.08.2015 is made absolute. However, the security
furnished by the respondent stands discharged. [Paras 13,
14][461-B-C, E-F]
Case Law Reference
[1961] 3 SCR 763 relied on Para 9.1 C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1942
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2013 of the High Court
of Calcutta in WPCT No. 330 of 2013.
D
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Shreya Jain, Ms. Vimla Sinha,
Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Shree Pal Singh, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. E
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants - Union of India and its
officers related with South Eastern Railway – have challenged the
judgment and order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the High Court of
Calcutta in WPCT No. 330 of 2013, whereby the High Court has
disapproved the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Central F
Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (‘the Tribunal’) in OA No. 293
of 2011 and has also held that the remitted proceedings in the disciplinary
enquiry against the respondent were rendered nullity, for having not
been concluded within the time limit fixed by the Tribunal in its earlier
order dated 03.09.2010. G
1.1. In view of its findings and conclusion, the High Court has
disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent with directions to the
appellants to reinstate him in service and to pay him 50% back wages
from the date of removal from service i.e., 17.02.2011 and until the date
of reinstatement. H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 2. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the issues
arising for consideration in this appeal, all the factual aspects and merits
of the charges in the disciplinary proceedings need not be dilated upon.
Only a brief reference to the relevant background aspects would suffice.
2.1. It has been the case of appellants that on 09.11.2005, the
B respondent, an Electric Locomotive Driver, while piloting a locomotive
engine, overshot the signal and thereby, endangered the property and
operation of railways as also the life of citizens. As per railway manual,
a joint enquiry was conducted in regard to the incident in question and it
was found that it had been a matter of averted collision, due to the
locomotive not being controlled; and that the brake adjustment rods were
C allegedly manipulated by the respondent-driver and his co- driver, in an
attempt to justify their stand that the engine could not be controlled due
to the poor power of brakes. Based on the enquiry report, a major penalty
charge-sheet bearing No. RS/ACC/6/2005/SK/MJ dated 06.12.2005 was
issued to the respondent.
D 2.2. After the enquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority,
having examined the record and the findings of the Enquiry Officer,
ultimately served the respondent with the punishment notice dated
23.02.2006, imposing the penalty of removal from railway service with
immediate effect.
E 2.3. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority against the aforesaid punishment notice dated 23.02.2006
wherein, after considering the assurances given by the respondent to
remain more careful in the future, the Appellate Authority, by its order
dated 23.08.2006, modified the penalty to that of downgrading his pay to
F the lowest stage in the scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/-.
2.4. The respondent preferred a revision petition against the order
so passed by the Appellate Authority but the Revisional Authority, by its
order dated 14.03.2007, declined to interfere while observing that as per
technical review, nothing was wrong with the brakes of the locomotive;
G and that the respondent had encountered several down-gradients
successfully and fading of brakes could not occur abruptly.
2.5. The respondent, thereafter, filed OA No. 373 of 2007 before
the Tribunal, challenging the orders passed against him and seeking
reinstatement with all benefits. The Tribunal decided the OA so filed by
the respondent by its order dated 03.09.2010.
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHARVAN KUMAR 451
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
2.5.1. Though the Tribunal noted the questions involved in the matter A
as to whether the report of the Commissioner, Railway Safety/Joint
Enquiry could hold somebody guilty or their role was only to ascertain
systemic defects so as to prevent recurrence in future; and as to whether
such report could be accepted in evidence without examining the authors?
The Tribunal, however, observed that these questions were not required
B
to be answered and proceeded to hold that the proceedings suffered
from illegality and impropriety in view of the fact that one of the members
who had submitted the joint enquiry report, Shri A. Sadasiva, was the
same person who had also issued major penalty charge-sheet and then,
imposed the penalty in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority. The
Tribunal also noticed that this objection was duly taken by the respondent C
in his representation but, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional
Authority did not consider the same.
2.5.2. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the orders passed against
the respondent but, provided for the proceedings afresh in the following
words: - D
“10. The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority
Appellate Authority & Revisional Authority are quashed and set
aside. In case the same Disciplinary Authority continues an ad-
hoc Disciplinary Authority shall be appointed. The Disciplinary
Authority shall proceed from the stage of consideration or (sic) E
representation against the report of Enquiry Officer uninfluenced
by the earlier decisions. This exercise be completed within two
months of receipt of order. All other contentions are left open. No
costs.”
2.6. After the directions aforesaid, the matter was taken up for F
reconsideration but, the Disciplinary Authority required additional time
to complete the proceedings, and hence, an application seeking
enlargement of time for deciding the case was filed before the Tribunal,
being Miscellaneous Application No. 436 of 2010. However, this
application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 03.01.2011, essentially for
the reason that the same was lacking in material particulars like the G
timeframe laid down by the Railway Board for taking a decision on the
Enquiry Report.
2.7. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed its order on
17.02.2011, once again imposing the major penalty of removal from
H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A railway service on the respondent, while concluding that the respondent
did not stop the engine on time due to his negligence. It was also mentioned
in the order of the Disciplinary Authority that the respondent could prefer
an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 45 days from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order.
B 2.8. The respondent did not challenge the order so passed by the
Disciplinary Authority on 17.02.2011 in appeal. Instead, he moved the
Tribunal and filed OA No. 293 of 2011 with the contention, inter alia,
that the Tribunal had stipulated a time limit of two months to complete
the proceedings by its order dated 03.09.2010 and the proceedings had
abated for having not been completed within the prescribed time limit.
C
2.8.1. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, dismissed the OA so
filed by the respondent by its order dated 21.06.2013 while holding that
the proceedings would have abated only if it were so directed in specific
terms. The Tribunal found that in the instant case, while directing that
respondent’s case be decided within two months, it had not been
D specifically provided that the proceedings would abate if not completed
within two months. It was also noted that the respondent had not preferred
an appeal against the order dated 17.02.2011, and two years had already
elapsed. However, in the interest of justice, it was directed that if the
respondent were to file an appeal against the order dated 17.02.2011,
E the Appellate Authority would consider and decide the same within a
period of one month in accordance with law. The Tribunal referred to a
decision of its Full Bench and observed, inter alia, as under: -
“8. Further it has been observed by the Tri- bunal by inserting the
reference that it is only when in an order a specific direction of
F abating of the proceedings not completed within a spe- cific time
limit the proceedings abates but not otherwise. It is clear that in
the earlier O.A. time limited was given but not specifically pro-
vided that the proceedings will abate if not done within the stipulated
time frame. Considering the observation made above, since the
applicant has also not preferred the appeal against the order dated
G 17.2.2011. However, more than two years have already elapsed
but considering the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to
issue a di- rection to the applicant that in case he prefers an appeal
against the order dated 17.2.2011 the appellate authority shall
consider and decide the same within the next period of one month
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHARVAN KUMAR 453
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
in accordance with law and the decision so taken be communicated A
to the applicant.
9. However, in regard to considering the prayer of the applicant
is concerned we are not inclined to interfere in the same. As
such, the O.A. is dismissed, no orders as to costs.”
3. The aforesaid order dated 21.06.2013 as passed by the Tribunal B
in OA No. 293 of 2011 was challenged in WPCT No. 330 of 2013,
which has been considered and allowed by the High Court by way of the
impugned order dated 30.08.2013.
3.1. The High Court has taken the view that the Disciplinary
Authority had no jurisdiction or authority to complete the proceedings C
beyond the period prescribed by the Tribunal. The High Court has
observed that even though Miscellaneous Application No. 436 of 2010,
seeking enlargement of time was dismissed by the Tribunal on 03.01.2011,
the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the matter; and such
proceedings beyond the time prescribed were nullity in the eyes of law. D
It has further been held that once the proceedings were held to be a
nullity, there could be no question of preferring a statutory appeal, and
such proceedings could only be challenged before a Court of law. The
relevant observations and reasoning of the High Court read as under: -
“….Since the authorities concerned failed to complete the E
disciplinary proceedings in terms of the earlier order passed by
the learned Tribunal, an application was filed on behalf of the
respondents before the said learned Tribunal for extension of time
and the said application was numbered as M.A. 436 of 2010. The
learned Tribunal, however, dismissed the aforesaid application on
3rd January, 2011. Even though the learned Tribunal by the specific F
order dated 3rd January, 2011 passed in M.A. 436 of 2010 refused
to extend the time limit for completion of the disciplinary
proceedings in respect of the petitioner herein, the Disciplinary
Authority in an illegal manner proceeded with the disciplinary
proceedings and passed the order of punishment removing the G
said petitioner from Railway service.
The Disciplinary Authority namely, Sri A.K. Mukherjee, Sr.
Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), S.E. Railway, Adra refused
to show any respect to the solemn order passed by the learned
Tribunal and in a most illegal manner, passed the order of
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A punishment in respect of the petitioner herein by conducting the
disciplinary proceedings even after expiry of the prescribed time
limit fixed by the learned Tribunal.
The petitioner herein, however, challenged the aforesaid
order of dismissal before the learned Tribunal by filing another
B application being O.A. 293 of 2011. The learned Tribunal,
unfortunately, failed to appreciate that the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority was nullity in the eye of law since the said
Disciplinary Authority conducted the disciplinary proceedings in
respect of the petitioner herein after the expiry of the prescribed
time limit fixed by the said learned Tribunal.
C
When a proceeding is nullity in the eye of law, question of
preferring any statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority
cannot and does not arise and the same can be directly challenged
before any court of law. The learned Tribunal, most unfortunately,
dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein on the ground
D that no appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority without
realizing the fact that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority
was nullity in the eye of law since the final order of punishment
was passed by the Disciplinary Authority after expiry of the
prescribed time limit fixed by the learned Tribunal.
E The impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority
dated 17th February, 2011 cannot be sustained in the eye of law
since the Disciplinary Authority had no authority and/or jurisdiction
to conduct and complete the disciplinary proceedings beyond the
prescribed time limit.
F The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, should not have
dismissed the writ petition for not preferring any appeal before
the Appellate Authority since the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority was nullity in the eye of law….”
3.2. For the aforesaid reasons, the High Court set aside the order
G of the Tribunal dated 21.06.2013 and also quashed the order dated
17.02.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as being illegal, invalid
and nullity in the eyes of law. The High Court even proceeded to make
adverse observation against the officer who had acted as the Disciplinary
Authority; and proceeded to order reinstatement of the respondent with
50% of back wages from the date of removal from service, i.e.,
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHARVAN KUMAR 455
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
17.02.2011 and until the date of reinstatement. The High Court observed A
and directed as under: -
“For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority dated 17 th February, 2011 stands
quashed being illegal, invalid and nullity in the eye of law.
For the identical reasons, the impugned order passed by B
the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore,
set aside. We do not approve the conduct of Sri A. K. Mukherjee,
Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), S.E. Railway, Adra and
Disciplinary Authority since the said Disciplinary Authority did not
show any respect to the solemn order passed by the learned C
Tribunal and we record our strong displeasure in this regard. We
hope the superior authority will take note of our displeasure in
respect of the aforesaid conduct of the Disciplinary Authority
for not showing proper respect to the solemn order passed by the
learned Tribunal.
D
Since the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of
the charge-sheet could not be completed within the prescribed
time limit, the same stood automatically quashed.
The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service forthwith. We are also of the opinion that E
justice will be done in the facts of the present case if 50% of the
back wages is paid to the petitioner herein.
The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to pay
50% of the back wages to the petitioner herein from the date of
removal of the said petitioner herein from the date of removal of F
the said petitioner from service i.e. with effect from 17th February,
2011 till the date of reinstatement of the said petitioner in service
in terms of this order. The respondent authorities are also directed
to calculate the aforesaid back wages within three weeks from
date and disburse the same to the petitioner herein within a period
two weeks thereafter positively.” G
4. The appellants have challenged the judgement and order so
passed by the High Court by way of this appeal.
4.1. It may be pointed out that in this matter, leave to appeal was
granted by this Court on the very first date of consideration i.e., 07.02.2014
H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A and, having regard to the circumstances of the case, this Court stayed
the operation of all the judgments passed in this matter. Thereafter, by
an order dated 14.08.2015, this Court directed the appellants to deposit
50% back wages in terms of the directions of the High Court and provided
that the respondent would be entitled to withdraw the same against the
security of immoveable property. We are informed that such payment
B
has indeed been made and the respondent has received the same while
furnishing the requisite security.
5. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
appellants has submitted that the High Court was not justified in upsetting
and reversing the well- considered order of the Tribunal dated 21.06.2013,
C which did not suffer from any infirmity.
5.1. The learned ASG has referred to the charges against the
respondent and the findings recorded against him that he did not stop
the locomotive before the danger starter and advance starter, which
directly endangered the safety of railway operations. The learned ASG
D would submit that the High Court has proceeded merely on technical
grounds while ignoring the gravity of charges in this case.
5.2. The learned ASG has further submitted that the Tribunal in its
order dated 21.06.2013 had rightly held that even if time limit was set
earlier for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the said proceedings
E did not abate, if not finalised within the time limit fixed by the Tribunal
because no such directions were contained in the earlier order requiring
completion of the proceedings within two months. According to the learned
ASG, the order passed in the earlier round by the Tribunal having not
signified that the proceedings would come to an end after expiry of two
F months, the view of the High Court in treating the proceedings as nullity
remains unjustified.
5.3. The learned ASG has further submitted that the Tribunal in its
order dated 21.06.2013 had also taken note of the fact that the respondent
had not preferred the statutory appeal and even while dismissing the
G OA, reserved such liberty for the respondent. Hence, there was no reason
for the High Court to interfere with the justified order of the Tribunal.
5.4. We may observe in the passing that the learned ASG also
attempted to refer to the merits of the case and to support the findings of
the Disciplinary Authority but, we do not consider it necessary to enter
into the merits of case, for the same having not formed the subject of
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHARVAN KUMAR 457
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
consideration of the Tribunal in its order dated 21.06.2013 and of the A
High Court in its impugned order dated 30.08.2013.
6. While countering the submissions made on behalf of the
appellants, learned counsel for the respondent has duly supported the
order impugned and has submitted that in the given set of facts and
circumstances, no case for interference is made out. B
6.1. Learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously argued
that in view of the mandate of the previous order of the Tribunal dated
03.09.2010, the Disciplinary Authority was duty bound to decide the
matter within two months and it having failed to do so and then, even the
application seeking extension of time having been dismissed by the C
Tribunal on 03.01.2011, the Disciplinary Authority could not have
continued with the matter. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 17.02.2011 is a nullity in
the eyes of law, for the stipulated period of time, as provided for by the
Tribunal, having expired and no extension having been granted.
D
6.2. The learned counsel has submitted that Courts and Tribunals
have inherent powers to prescribe time limits to conduct proceedings
and any such prescription remains binding on the authority conducting
the proceedings. According to the learned counsel, if such directions
are not properly and punctually complied with, the proceedings would
come to an end with the expiry of the time fixed by the Court or the E
Tribunal. Thus, learned counsel would contend, the view taken by the
High Court remains justified and calls for no interference.
7. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that neither
the approach of the High Court nor its conclusion could be endorsed. In F
other words, the propositions of the High Court, treating the proceedings
in question as having abated or having been rendered nullity cannot be
approved from any standpoint.
8. It appears that the High Court has taken the period of two
months for completion of the proceedings, as stated in the order of the G
Tribunal dated 03.09.2010, to be an inflexible mandate as also of fatal
consequence in the manner that after its expiry, the department could
not have taken the disciplinary proceedings to their logical conclusion.
This approach of the High Court cannot be supported even from a
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A technical standpoint and obviously stands at conflict with the substance
of the matter.
9. As noticed, after the respondent was awarded the penalty of
removal from service by the order dated 23.02.2006 in conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings, he challenged the same and the Appellate
B Authority, by its order dated 23.08.2006, altered the penalty to that of
downgrading his pay. The Revisional Authority by its order dated
14.03.2007 held that the negligence on the part of the respondent was
established and found no reason to interfere. However, the Tribunal, in
the earlier round of litigation, while dealing with OA No. 373 of 2007,
chose not to examine the other material questions involved in the matter
C but, disapproved the imposition of penalty on the respondent for the reason
that the person acting as the Disciplinary Authority had been one of the
members who had earlier submitted the joint enquiry report. In this view
of the matter, the Tribunal quashed the orders passed against the
respondent but, being conscious of the fact that the disciplinary
D proceedings were otherwise required to be taken to the logical conclusion,
issued directions to ensure that the matter be dealt with by the Disciplinary
Authority other than the person who had been a member of the joint
enquiry team and the proceedings be taken up from the stage of
consideration of representation of the respondent against the report of
the Enquiry Officer. While concluding on the matter, the Tribunal also
E expected that such afresh exercise be completed within two months of
the receipt of the order, after leaving all other contentions open. As
noticed, the appellants attempted to seek enlargement of time in view of
the fact that the exercise could not be completed within the said period
of two months but, this prayer for enlargement was declined by the
F Tribunal not on its merits but, for a different reason that the particulars
like the time-frame laid down by the Railway Board for taking the decision
on the enquiry report was not stated before it. The said order expecting
conclusion of the proceedings within two months from the date of receipt
of copy of the order was passed on 03.09.2010; the application seeking
enlargement was dismissed on 03.01.2011; and the Disciplinary Authority
G passed its order on 17.02.2011. Thus, the question was about the status
of such order so passed by the Disciplinary Authority beyond the period
fixed by the Tribunal which had not been enlarged. The Tribunal in its
order dated 21.06.2013 held that the proceedings pursuant to the order
dated 03.09.2010 would have abated only if it was so directed in specific
H terms and not otherwise. The Tribunal had been correct in this approach
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHARVAN KUMAR 459
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
and, in our view, the High Court has unjustifiably interfered with the just A
and proper order passed by the Tribunal.
9.1. It needs hardly any elaboration to say that fixing of the period
of two months by the Tribunal in this case had only been to ensure
expeditious proceedings because the matter was being restored for
reconsideration in the year 2010, though the disciplinary proceedings B
related with the incident dated 09.01.2005. However, the said period of
two months did not acquire any status akin to that of a statutory mandate
that the disciplinary proceedings would have automatically come to an
end with its expiry. It remains trite that if an Adjudicating Authority in
exercise of its jurisdiction could grant or fix a time period to do a particular
thing, in the absence of a specific statutory provision to the contrary, the C
jurisdiction to fix such a time period inhers the jurisdiction to extend the
time initially fixed. Such conditional orders have regularly been construed
by this Court to be in terrorem so as to put a check on the dilatory
tactics by any litigant or to guard against any laxity on the part of the
Adjucating Authority but, the Court is not powerless to enlarge the time D
even though it had peremptorily fixed the period at any earlier stage. In
the case of Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das: (1961) 3 SCR 763, this
Court examined the peremptory order of the Court fixing the period of
payment of deficit court fees in the backdrop of the fact that the application
for extension of time came up for hearing only after the time fixed by
the Court had expired and the application was rejected. This Court put E
the things in perspective while observing, inter alia, as under: -
“5…Such orders are not like the law of the Medes and the
Persians. Cases are known in which Courts have moulded their
practice to meet a situation such as this and to have restored a
suit or proceeding, even though a final order had been passed…” F
9.2. We may elaborate a little. When a conditional order is passed
by the Court/Tribunal to do a particular act or thing within a particular
period but the order does not provide anything as to the consequence of
default, the Court/Tribunal fixing the time for doing a particular thing
obviously retains the power to enlarge such time. As a corollary, even G
the Appellate Court/Tribunal or any higher forum would also be having
the power to enlarge such time, if so required. In any case, it cannot be
said that the proceedings would come to an end immediately after the
expiry of the time fixed.
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 9.3. In the present case, even the order dismissing the application
for enlargement of time on a technical ground of not placing before the
Tribunal instructions of the Railway Board, had again been not of giving
any such status of mandatory and rigid character to the period originally
fixed that the proceedings would have abated.
B 10. We are impelled to observe that while treating the proceedings
as having abated and as nullity, the High Court has ignored the
fundamental principles that fixing of such time period was only a matter
of procedure with an expectation of conclusion of the proceedings in an
expeditious manner. This period of two months had not acquired any
such mandatory statutory character so as to nullify the entire of the
C disciplinary proceedings with its expiry.
10.1. Moreover, when no consequence of default was stated in
the order dated 03.09.2010, the period as stated therein was only of
expectations and not of mandate. We may also observe that very many
times, such fixing of time period causes more complications and harm
D rather than serving the cause of justice. Fixing of such period could only
be justified if there are strong and compelling reasons for the same;
and if at all such period is proposed to be fixed, not only the reasons for
the same but, even the consequences of default are also required to be
stated if such period is, for any valid reason, expected to operate with
E adverse consequences on the defaulter.
11. The upshot of the discussion foregoing is that the proceedings
in question neither abated nor could have been considered nullity only
because of passage of the expected time period stated in the order of
the Tribunal dated 03.09.2010. There was no reason or justification for
F the High Court to interfere with the just and proper order passed by the
Tribunal on 21.06.2013, which deserves to be restored with necessary
consequential directions.
12. Before concluding, we also deem it necessary to observe that
the High Court in the impugned order proceeded to pass unnecessary
G strictures against the Disciplinary Authority who had passed the order
dated 17.02.2011. As noticed, the displeasure as expressed by the High
Court has itself been founded on a wrong premise where the High Court
assumed that the proceedings were rendered nullity and as if the
Disciplinary Authority could not have touched the same at all after expiry
of the expected period of time. We are clearly of the view that even if
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SHARVAN KUMAR 461
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
the High Court were to proceed on the premise that the proceedings A
should not have continued, there was no justification to observe that the
Disciplinary Authority had been disrespectful towards the judicial process.
In any case, when the order impugned is not being approved, such
observations/strictures shall also stand annulled.
13. Accordingly, and in view of the above, the impugned order B
dated 30.08.2013 is set aside and the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by
the Tribunal is restored.
13.1. Resultantly, it would be permissible for the respondent to
prefer an appeal against the order dated 17.02.2011 before the Appellate
Authority. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the C
background, we deem it appropriate to provide that if the respondent
files such an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on
merits, but strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced
by any observations occurring in any of the orders passed by the Tribunal
or by the High Court or for that matter, any observations occurring in the D
present judgment. All the contentions of the parties are, therefore, left
open to be examined by the Appellate Authority on merits, who would
also be expected to deal with the appeal expeditiously and while assigning
the same a priority for consideration.
14. Before concluding, one more aspect is required to be dealt E
with; it relates to the payment of 50% back wages to the respondent and
furnishing of security of immoveable property by him in terms of the
order passed by this Court on 14.08.2015. We are informed that such
payment has been made and the respondent has received the same while
furnishing the requisite security. Having regard to the totality of F
circumstances, the said order dated 14.08.2015 is made absolute.
However, the security furnished by the respondent stands discharged.
15. The appeal stands allowed to the extent and in the manner
indicated above. No order as to costs. Pending applications also stand
disposed of. G
Divya Pandey and Anurag Bhaskar Appeal partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Shivani Pundir, LCRA)
H
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