D. Ganesan vs Union Of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising from SLP(Civil)No(s).15023/2022)

D. GANESAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

Rejoinder affidavit of the appellant is not on record.

Ms. Mohana, learned senior counsel, appearing for the

appellant, however, submits that she won’t rely on the

rejoinder affidavit and wants to proceed with the hearing of

this matter on the basis of available pleadings.

The appellant, who was working with Bhabha Atomic

Research Centre (BARC), is aggrieved by the judgment and order

of the High Court passed on 28.04.2022 in Writ Petition No.54

of 2020 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon

him. The operative part of the order of the High Court reads:-

“17. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The Applicant / 1st Respondent is imposed with the punishment of Compulsory Retirement, which will take effect from today. The Applicant / 1st Respondent is entitled to only 40% of the pensionary benefits. Though an order of Compulsory Retirement is passed, it cannot be construed as a punishment, as he will be enjoying the benefit of pension to which he is not at all entitled to. This Court ought not to have granted even this relief to the Signature Not Verified Applicant, had the Department approached the Court well within time. It is made clear that the Applicant / 1st Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2024.01.27 12:59:12 IST Reason: Respondent is not eligible for any other terminal benefits, such as gratuity, DCRG and the like, excluding the PF contribution, if any made by the Applicant. The Government should also think of amending the Rules to 2

enable the Department to proceed against the employee even after retirement / superannuation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

The allegation against the appellant is of

misrepresenting his caste status. Proceeding was initiated

against him for posing as a candidate from the scheduled Caste

category at the time of obtaining appointment to the post of

Trainee Fitter (Tradesman / C) in BARC. It is specifically

alleged that he had availed the benefit of age relaxation at

that point of time, i.e. at the time of his appointment. It is

the respondent’s case that he belongs to “Thuluva Vellalar”,

which is listed as a Backward community. We are not going into

that question in this appeal as we do not find any effective

determination of the caste status of the appellant in any of

the proceedings which were taken against him till the decision

of the High Court was rendered. It appears that the authorities

initiated disciplinary proceeding against him on 06.05.2013.

Simultaneously, FIR No.343/2012 dated 21.10.2012 was also

registered against him at the instance of an individual with

Kalpakkam Police Station, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, alleging

commission of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the

Indian Penal Code.

The appellant applied before the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Madras Bench, questioning the legality of continuance

of the disciplinary proceeding during pendency of the criminal

action. The Tribunal, by its judgment delivered on 06.09.2013,

inter alia, held:-

“…..In our opinion, we are convinced that the 3

disciplinary proceedings can be kept in abeyance till a finality is reached in the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed and there will be a direction to the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of the charge memo dated – 06.05.2013 as against the applicant in abeyance till the criminal case in Crime No.343/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Thirukkazhukundram is finally decided. However, there will be no order as to costs.”

The authorities challenged the decision of the Tribunal

after seven years, in the year 2020, and approached the High

Court of judicature at Madras for invalidating the Tribunal’s

decision. The High Court entertained the aforesaid writ

petition in spite of the issue of delay being raised by the

appellant and ultimately disposed of the same with the

observations and directions which we have quoted above. It has

been argued by Ms.Mohana, learned senior counsel, that as the

criminal proceeding and the disciplinary proceeding/action were

pending and there was no determination on the question of using

a fake caste certificate, the High Court ought not to have

determined that question in the judgment under appeal and the

imposition of punishment thereon was also not warranted.

According to the appellant, the task of imposition of

punishment is within the domain of the employer / disciplinary

authority, after finding guilt on the part of a delinquent

employee.

Appearing on behalf of the respondent - Union of India,

Mr.Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by

Ms. Priyanka Das, learned counsel, argued that the high-power

committee set up in terms of the judgment of this Court in the 4

case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. reported in 1994 (6)

SCC 241 came to a finding on the caste status and there was no

flaw in the judgment of the High Court in directing the

appellant to undergo compulsory retirement.

In our opinion, however, in the impugned judgment, the

High Court assumed the role of a disciplinary authority and

imposed punishment also. To that extent, we accept the

submission of Ms.Mohana, learned senior counsel, that such a

finding and the consequential decision were not warranted.

Having gone through the judgments of the High Court as well as

the Tribunal, we do not find any exercise for determination of

the caste status claim of the appellant at the time of his

appointment to the service. In our opinion, it would be for the

disciplinary authority to determine that question. We are also

of the opinion that in the facts of the given case, the

disciplinary proceeding could continue simultaneously with the

criminal inquiry. There is no legal bar on running such

parallel proceedings though in certain situations, this Court

has not permitted continuance of dual proceedings.

We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and

order appealed against and direct the authorities to complete

the disciplinary proceeding within a period of six months from

today. The order of compulsory retirement shall stand revoked.

The appellant shall participate in such inquiry and not take

unnecessary adjournments. To that extent, the order of the

Tribunal shall stand modified. As we are setting aside the 5

judgment and order of the High Court, we hold that the

appellant shall be entitled to such benefits as would be

permissible under the law. These benefits shall be released to

him expeditiously, after adjusting any monetary benefit which

may have been given to him.

The present appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

...................J. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE]

...................J. [SANJAY KUMAR]

New Delhi;

January 23, 2024.

6

ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15023/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-04-2022 in WP No. 54/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

D. GANESAN PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. & IA No. 128546/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 23-01-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

For Petitioner(s) Mrs. V Mohana, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Karthik Sundar, Adv.

Ms. Bhavya Pandey, Adv.

Ms. Sneha Botwe, Adv.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mrs. N C Kavitha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.

Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, Adv.

Mr. Suyash Pandey, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed judgment, which

is placed on the file.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NIRMALA NEGI) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR