Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Mohd. Ibrahim

Supreme Court5 February 2001U.C. Banerjee · S.N. Variava

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where findings in a disciplinary proceeding are based upon statements of persons examined during a preliminary enquiry rather than evidence adduced in the formal disciplinary hearing, the order of dismissal is vitiated; however, this vitiating defect does not deprive the employer of the power to commence a fresh disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law, even if a substantial period has elapsed since the original dismissal order.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

ORDER
1. Leave granted.

2. Union of India is in appeal against the order of the Tribunal setting aside an order of the dismissal of the respondent as well as the order of the High Court refusing to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent, a set of charges leveled against which charges appear to be grave and serious, the ultimate conclusion of the enquiring officer having been based upon statement of persons made in the course of preliminary enquiry, the Tribunal came to hold that the conclusion is vitiated since the same was based upon the statement of persons examined in the preliminary enquiry and accordingly the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal. The High Court on being approached has refused to interfere with the order in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. When the matter was listed for admission, learned ASG requested that the power of the employer to start a fresh proceeding should not be whittled down in any manner, particularly in view of the nature of charges against the delinquent. He however fairly stated that in the procedure adopted in the case in hand, the order cannot be found fault with. Pursuance to the notice, respondent has entered appearance and the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contested on the ground that 17 long years have elapsed and it will cause great hardship to start a proceeding afresh. We are unable to persuade to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, particularly looking at the charges leveled against. In that view of the matter, though we are of the considered opinion that the order of dismissal was vitiated as the findings have been based on consideration of statement of the persons examined during the preliminary enquiry but the power of employer to start a fresh proceeding cannot be taken away. Therefore, we dispose of the matter with the observation that it will be open to the competent authority to start a fresh disciplinary proceeding and conclude the same in accordance with law.

3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free