2008 (9) TMI 1037 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Revokes Order: Departmental Enquiry to Restart; Respondent Reinstated Without Back Wages or Benefits.

The SC set aside the Gauhati HC's order, directing the completion of departmental enquiry within four months, starting from the show cause notice stage. ... - Issues involved: Challenge to judgment of Division Bench of Gauhati High Court dismissing writ appeal, challenge to reinstatement without back wages, violation of principles of natural justice.Summary:The Supreme Court heard the appeal challenging the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service without back wages. The Single Judge had directed the reinstatement due to witnesses not being produced for cross-examination, and the Division Bench agreed with this decision. The appellant argued that this decision contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings, while the respondent's counsel claimed it was based on the lack of adherence to natural justice principles.In the case of Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls and Ors., the Supreme Court directed the disciplinary authority to provide the enquiry report to the appellant for representation but stated that reinstatement and back wages were not automatic when following natural justice principles. Similarly, in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr., the Court emphasized the importance of providing the delinquent employee with the enquiry report and outlined the procedure for setting aside an order of punishment.Based on the above legal principles, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the completion of the enquiry within four months, starting from the show cause notice stage. The respondent was to be reinstated solely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings, without back wages or service benefits. The Court emphasized that the proceedings should continue from the stage before the issue arose, without automatic reinstatement.The respondent, who had already retired, expressed disinterest in pursuing further remedy and was advised to consider seeking a change in the termination order to compulsory retirement through appropriate representation to the authorities. The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of the directions provided regarding the disciplinary proceedings and reinstatement without back wages.