Service Law: Appointment – Propriety of – On facts, appointment of appellant, belonging to backward community as Engineering Supervisor, declared null and void on account of failure to produce original caste certificate – Challenge to – Single Judge of the High Court quashed the said order, however, the Division Bench upheld the order – On appeal, held: Appellant at the first available opportunity and before joining the duties had sent a letter on his own to the Corporation that the Revenue Authorities had declined to issue the original caste certificate to him – Appellant also requested the Corporation not to treat him as ‘reserved candidate’ but treat him as ‘general candidate’ – Appellant did not suppress any information relating to his caste certificate from the Corporation – Corporation by asking the appellant to join the duties, and later promoting him to the next higher grade, condoned the lapse and Corporation had no right to hold any Departmental Enquiry in relation to the issue of appellant’s caste certificate – Assuming that the Corporation could still probe the issue, the Corporation having held a Departmental Enquiry and imposing the punishment on the appellant of reduction of his rank for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect, the issue of caste certificate attained finality – Furthermore, assuming that the higher authority had the power to enhance the punishment, it could be exercised within 30 days from the date of the order of punishment – However, the punishment order declaring the appellant’s appointment as null and void was passed after 13 years from the date of passing of the original punishment order – Thus, the entire action of the Corporation is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not sustainable in law and order passed by Division Bench set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Appellant at the first available opportunity and before joining the duties had sent a letter on his own to the Corporation informing therein that it was not possible for him to produce the original caste certificate because the Revenue Authorities had declined to issue the original caste certificate to him. Not only that, the appellant further on his own requested the Corporation not to treat him as “reserved candidate” but treat him as “general candidate”. In this way, the appellant, did not suppress any information relating to his caste certificate from the Corporation. The Corporation, in these circumstances, had three options; first, not to appoint the appellant which the Corporation did not opt; second, to grant some more time to produce the caste certificate or any other material to prove the appellant’s caste which again the Corporation did not opt and the third, to condone the lapse in filing the caste certificate and proceed to consider the appellant’s case treating him as a candidate belonging to the general category for selection purpose which the Corporation opted. The Corporation by their express conduct having followed the third option and condoned the lapse by asking the appellant to join the duties, which the appellant did, and later further promoting him to the next higher grade, the issue relating to caste certificate lost its significance. Thus, the Corporation, had no right to hold any Departmental Enquiry in relation to the issue of appellant’s caste certificate because they condoned the issue of caste certificate by allowing the appellant to join the duties and later by promoting him to the next higher grade. [Para 27-31][584-C-H]
1.2 Assuming, however, that the Corporation could still probe the issue in relation to the appellant’s caste certificate after allowing him to join, the Corporation having held a Departmental Enquiry and imposing the punishment on the appellant of “reduction of his rank to a lower stage by two stages in his time scale for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect”, the issue of caste certificate attained finality in all respect. The Corporation had thereafter no power to raise the issue of caste certificate again in any form against the appellant. In other words, the issue of caste certificate did not survive for any more consideration NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPN. LTD.
between the parties inasmuch as it was not a live issue between the parties. [Para 32, 33] [525-A-C]
1.3 Assuming that the higher authority had the power to enhance the punishment imposed on the appellant by taking recourse to powers under Rule 30, such power, could be exercised by the authorities within 30 days from the date of the order of punishment. [Para 34] [585-C-D]
1.4 The punishment order was passed on 30.08.1997 whereas the higher authority exercised his power under Rule 30 on 07.07.2010 by which the punishment order dated 30.08.1997 was cancelled and was substituted by an order declaring the appellant’s appointment as null and void. This order was passed beyond a period of 30 days as provided in Rule 30 (3). In other words, the higher authority could pass the order under Rule 30 for revoking the original order of punishment dated 30.08.1997 as being bad and substituting it with another order declaring the appellant’s appointment as null and void within 30 days from the date of punishment order i.e, it could be passed on or before 30.09.1997 but not beyond this date. Since the order was passed almost after 13 years from the date of passing of the original punishment order, and hence on the face, it was bad in law. [Para 35, 37] [585-E, G]
1.5 The entire action of the Corporation starting from issuance of second charge memo dated 11.08.1995 and ending by passing the order dated 07.07.2010 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and mala fide exercise of the powers by the Corporation against the appellant and hence the same is not sustainable in law. In any event, the order dated 07.07.2010 which is subject matter of this appeal is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and is not legally sustainable. [Paras 25, 26] [584-A-B]
1.6 The Single Judge, rightly set aside the order impugned in the writ petition whereas the Division Bench was not right in setting aside the order of the Single Judge. Therefore, the reasoning and the conclusion of the Division Bench cannot be concurred with but are inclined to concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge. The order passed by the Division Bench is set aside and the order passed by the Single Judge (Writ Court) is restored. As a consequence, order dated 07.07.2010 passed by the Director (Power) of the Corporation which set aside the order of punishment dated 30.08.1997 and in its place substituted the order by declaring the appellant’s appointment void ab initio is hereby quashed. [Paras 39, 40 and 41][586-B-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.