A of U.P v. Harendra Arora & Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2315; Aligarh Muslim University & Ors.

Judgment

9 S.C.R. 828 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BISHAMBER DAS DOGRA (Civil Appeal No. 7087 of 2002) MAY 26, 2CJ9 A 8 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Service law - Dismissal from service - Employee- C security guard in CISF not completed six years in service but deserted the LINE five times - Dismissal from service by disciplinary authority - Set aside by courts below holding that enquiry report not furnished, employee not given opportunity to file objections and past conduct taken into consideration o while imposing punishment -Justification of- Held:Not justified - Non-furnishing of enquiry report to delinquent employee would not ipso facto vitiate disciplinary proceedings - Employee has to establish that real prejudice was caused to him by not furnishing enquiry report - Disciplinary authority E may take into consideration past conduct of delinquent employee for imposing punishment - On facts, no explanation for repeated misconduct or absenteeism - It was gross violation of discipline - Employee did not explain as to what prejudice caused to him by non-furnishing of enquiry report nor that there was failure of justice - Also application for leave not submitted - Thus, . order of High Court set aside and that of disciplinary authority restored. F + ..... !- • The questions which arose for consideration in this appeal are whether the delinquent employee is not G supposed to establish de-facto prejudice in case the enquiry report is not supplied to him before awarding ·. •P.U.n·i~hment; and whether the order of punishment would . be v.itiated if the Disciplinary Authority takes into . consideration the past conduct of the delinquent 828 H . f ' -+ t UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BISHAMBER DAS DOG RA 829 employee for the purpose of punishment? A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. In the instant case, the issues relate to the observance of the principles of natural justice as the delinquent employee may not get an opportunity to make the representation against the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer against him and also for the proposed punishment by the disciplinary authority. Principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait- jacket formulae and its observance would depend upon G the fact situation of each case. Therefore, the application of the principles of natural justice has to be understood with reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular case. [Para 9] [836-C-E] B D E F - .,

1.2. An order is required to be examined on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice. (Para 11] (837-A-B]

1.3. In case the enquiry report had not been made available to the delinquent employee it would not ipso facto vitiate the disciplinary proceedings as it would depend· upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the delinquent employee has to establish _that real prejudice has been caused to him by not furnishing the enquiry report to him. [Para 16] [839-F-G] Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. v. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965; Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (1994) 4 SCC ~28; Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Venaktesh Gururao Kurati JT (2006) 2 SC 73; Managing Director, EGIL G v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727; Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kai/ash Chandra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC. 31; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364; S.K. Singh v. Central Bank oflndia & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 415; State H • ~ ~· " 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.