Service Law: Dismissal of respondent-employee on three charges of misconduct in performance of official duties – Appellate authority dismissed the appeal of respondent – Single judge of High Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the case to the appellate authority for fresh consideration – On remand, appellate authority affirmed the dismissal order – Respondent again filed writ petition – Single judge of High Court held that charge no.2 was not proved and without expressing any opinion on charge no.1 and 3 again remanded the matter to appellate authority for rehearing on charge no.1 and 3 – On appeal, Division Bench of High Court remanded the case to the Disciplinary authority holding that Single judge erred in remanding the case to the appellate authority – Instant appeal filed by the appellant-bank – Held: Single Judge failed to see that so far as charge Nos. 1 and 3 were concerned, both were held proved against the employee in the departmental enquiry – Single Judge was under legal obligation to examine each charge independently and then record his findings on all the charges in accordance with law – Division Bench having noticed the said error instead of rectifying the same erred in remanding the case to the disciplinary authority instead of remanding it to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits – The writ petition is, therefore, restored to its original file – Single judge to decide the writ petition afresh.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: The Single Judge erred in remanding the case to the Appellate Authority. It is for the reason that the Single Judge confined his examination only to charge No. 2 and held the same as not proved whereas he failed to examine the case so far as charge Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned. It should have been seen that so far as charge Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, both were held proved against the employee in the departmental enquiry. In these circumstances, the Single Judge was under legal obligation to examine each charge independently and then he should have recorded his findings on all the charges in accordance with law. It was, however, not done. So far as the Division Bench is concerned, they having noticed the said error committed by the Single Judge instead of rectifying the same yet committed another error by remanding the case to the disciplinary authority instead of remanding it to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits. Remand of the case to disciplinary authority by the Division Bench in the facts of this case was, therefore, unjustified. [Paras 12-15] [754-C-F]
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.