1    

REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3925 OF 2019  

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29160 of 2018)        

Punjab Urban Planning and Development            …Appellants  Authority & Anr.    

Versus  

Karamjit Singh                               …Respondent  

J U D G M E N T  

 INDU MALHOTRA, J.  

Leave granted.  

1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the final  

Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2018 passed by a Division  

Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh,  

in LPA No. 894 of 2018.  

2. The factual background of the case, is as under:

2    

2.1. On 01.12.1995, the Respondent was appointed as a  

Chowkidar on daily wages by the Appellant – Punjab  

Urban Planning and Development Authority. His name  

was on the muster rolls till 31.03.1997.  

2.2. On 23.01.2001, the Government of Punjab revised the  

Policy for regularization of work-charged / daily wage  

and other categories of employees.  

     As per the revised Policy, all the Departments under  

the Government of Punjab were directed to prepare lists  

of work-charged employees, daily wagers, and other  

similar categories of employees, who had completed 3  

years of service. From such lists, employees would be  

absorbed / regularized against regular posts existing in  

each Department, in order of seniority.  

2.3. On 26.12.2001, the Appellant – Authority issued an  

Office Order regularizing the services of 102 daily  

wagers as per the State Government’s revised Policy  

dated 23.01.2001.  

2.4. The Respondent’s name was included in the Office  

Order issued by the Appellant – Authority.

3    

Consequently, his services came to be regularized w.e.f.  

06.11.2001.  

2.5. Subsequently, two employees of the Appellant –  

Authority viz. Baldev Singh and Rikhi Ram, filed Writ  

Petition No. 15843 of 2002 before the Punjab & Haryana  

High Court, challenging the Office Order dated  

26.12.2001. The Respondent was impleaded as a party  

in the said Writ Petition. It was alleged that there were  

irregularities in the regularization of certain employees,  

including that of the Respondent.  

2.6. The High Court vide Order dated 01.10.2002, directed  

the Appellant – Authority to treat the Writ Petition as a  

representation on behalf of the writ petitioners, and  

pass a speaking order within 4 months.  

2.7. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the  

Appellant – Authority scrutinized the list of employees  

who were regularized vide Office Order dated  

26.12.2001. The Authority called for a report from the  

Executive Engineer (C/Project – II), Mohali. The report  

revealed that the Respondent had not completed the  

requisite period of 3 years’ service prior to 22.01.2001.

4    

2.8. The Appellant – Authority issued a Show Cause Notice  

dated 24.03.2003 to the Respondent directing him to  

appear before the Chief Administrator of the Appellant –  

Authority on 31.03.2003 for a personal hearing.   

2.9. On 31.03.2003 the Respondent appeared before the  

Chief Administrator of the Appellant – Authority for the  

personal hearing. The Chief Administrator found that  

the Respondent failed to furnish any evidence  

whatsoever, documentary or otherwise, or any  

satisfactory proof of having served the Appellant –  

Authority for at least 3 years prior to 22.01.2001.  

  The Chief Administrator vide Order dated 22.05.2003,  

annulled the regularization of the services of the  

Respondent. It was held that the regularization of the  

services of the Respondent was not as per the revised  

Policy issued by the Government of Punjab on  

23.01.2001.  

2.10. The Respondent challenged the Order dated 22.05.2003  

passed by the Chief Administrator, by way of Writ  

Petition No. 8354 of 2003 before the Punjab & Haryana  

High Court.

5    

  The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition vide Order  

dated 23.10.2003, and granted the Respondent liberty  

to approach the Labour Court for redressal of his  

grievances.  

2.11. On 20.12.2003, the Respondent raised an industrial  

dispute against the Appellant – Authority before the  

Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab. The matter  

was referred to conciliation.  

  Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the  

dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala.  

2.12. The Respondent submitted that his services had been  

illegally terminated by the Appellant – Authority vide  

Order dated 21.11.2003. He contended that he had  

continuously worked with the Appellant – Authority  

from 01.12.1995 till 21.11.2003, and had put in more  

than 240 days of service in the last calendar year. The  

Respondent alleged that the termination of his services  

was in violation of Section 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the  

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  

2.13. The Appellant – Authority submitted that the  

Respondent worked as a daily wager, whose name was

6    

borne on the muster rolls. As per the record, there were  

breaks in his service from 01.12.1995 till 31.03.1997.  

He had put in only 6 months of service prior to  

31.03.1997. After 1997, the Respondent was not  

employed as a daily wager with the Appellant –  

Authority.  

  It was further submitted that the Respondent’s name  

was not included in the original list dated 12.09.2000  

forwarded by the Divisional Engineer, PUDA, Mohali to  

the Superintending Engineer, PUDA, Mohali.  

  The Respondent’s name however came to be included  

in the final list recommended for regularization, through  

his connivance with some officials of the Appellant –  

Authority.  

2.14. The Industrial Tribunal, Patiala dismissed the Reference  

made by the Respondent vide Order dated 15.10.2013.  

It was held that since the entry of the Respondent into  

service on 26.12.2001 was through wrongful means, his  

services were rightly terminated vide Order dated  

22.05.2003.

7    

2.15. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Industrial  

Tribunal, the Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 21519  

of 2014 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.  

  A Single Judge of the High Court vide Order dated  

07.02.2018, allowed the Writ Petition filed by the  

Respondent, and set aside the Order dated 15.10.2013  

passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala.  

  The learned Single Judge held that “rightly or  

wrongly” the Respondent’s services had been regularized  

on 26.12.2001 under the revised Policy of the State  

Government. Thus, permanent status had been given to  

the Respondent w.e.f. 26.12.2001.  

  The learned Single Judge held that it was necessary  

for the Appellant – Authority to have issued a charge-

sheet, conduct an enquiry against a permanent  

employee, before terminating or dismissing him from  

service under the Regulations. Undisputedly, since no  

charge-sheet had been issued, or enquiry conducted,  

the action of terminating the services of the Respondent  

by merely issuing a Show Cause Notice, and granting a  

personal hearing was not sufficient compliance with the

8    

Regulations. The order of termination dated 22.05.2003,  

and the Award of the Industrial Tribunal were set aside.  

  The learned Single Judge granted liberty to the  

Appellant – Authority to take necessary action against  

the Respondent under the statutory Regulations. It was  

ordered that the Appellant – Authority pass a final order  

after conducting a disciplinary enquiry against the  

Respondent. The Respondent shall be deemed to be  

under suspension, from the date on which his services  

were terminated i.e. 22.05.2003 till the date of passing  

of the final order.  

  The Appellant – Authority was further directed to  

calculate, and disburse subsistence allowance to the  

Respondent from 22.05.2003 onwards, and continue to  

disburse the same till conclusion of the disciplinary  

proceedings against him.  

2.16. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge, the  

Appellant – Authority filed LPA No. 894 of 2018 before  

the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High  

Court.

9    

  The Division Bench dismissed the LPA filed by the  

Appellant – Authority vide impugned final Judgment  

and Order dated 09.07.2018, and affirmed the Order  

dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Single Judge. It was  

held that the Punjab Urban Planning & Development  

Authority Employees (Punishment and Appeal)  

Regulations, 1997 contained provisions for initiation of  

regular departmental enquiry before dismissal or  

termination of a regular employee. The termination of  

the services of the Respondent by mere issuance of a  

Show Cause Notice was not only de hors the  

Regulations, but also contrary to the principles of  

natural justice.  

2.17. The Appellant – Authority filed the present Civil Appeal  

to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2018  

passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana  

High Court.  

  On 22.11.2018, this Court issued Notice to the  

Respondent, subject to the Appellant – Authority  

depositing Rs. 25,000/- towards Costs of litigation for

10    

the Respondent. The Appellant – Authority deposited  

the aforesaid amount in this Court.  

3. We have heard Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, learned Counsel  

for the Appellant – Authority, who inter alia submitted as  

under:  

3.1. The Respondent worked with the Authority as a daily  

wager, whose name was on the muster rolls from  

01.12.1995 till 31.03.1997. He had put in only 6  

months of service prior to 31.03.1997, and was not in  

service thereafter. Therefore, he was not eligible to be  

regularized under the State Government’s revised Policy  

dated 23.01.2001 which required an employee to have  

completed 3 years’ of continuous service prior to  

22.01.2001, so as to be eligible for regularization.  

  It was further submitted that the Respondent had  

fraudulently, and in connivance with some officials of  

the Appellant – Authority, got his name surreptitiously  

included in the final list of employees recommended for  

regularization.

11    

3.2. The report submitted by the Executive Engineer  

(C/Project – II), Mohali to the Chief Administrator  

showed that the Respondent had not fulfilled the  

mandatory pre-requisite of having served for 3 years’ or  

more up till 22.01.2001.  

  The Chief Administrator vide Order dated 22.05.2003  

annulled the Office Order dated 26.12.2001 qua the  

regularization of the services of the Respondent.  

3.3. It was further submitted that the Appellant – Authority  

conducted a disciplinary enquiry against the officials  

who had recommended the name of the Respondent for  

regularization. The Enquiry Report dated 25.01.2005  

found four officials to have supplied wrong information  

with respect to the regularization of the Respondent,  

and some other daily wagers who had less than 3 years’  

service.   

  Since the appointment of the Respondent on regular  

basis was void on account of having been fraudulently  

obtained by collusion, the Respondent was not entitled  

to the protection under the provisions of the Industrial  

Disputes Act, 1947.

12    

4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on  

behalf of the Respondent, submitted that:  

4.1. There was no infirmity in the Orders passed by the  

Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court.  

4.2. It was submitted that the present case was covered by  

the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad &  

Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.,1 rendered by a Constitution  

Bench of this Court.  

5. We have carefully perused the pleadings and the written  

submissions made by the parties, and also considered the  

submissions made at the oral hearing.  

5.1. In the present case, the Respondent had sought to  

secure regularization of his services, even though he did  

not fulfill the pre-requisite of a minimum of 3 years of  

continuous service prior to 22.01.2001 as per the  

revised Policy of the Government of Punjab for  

regularization of work-charged, daily wage, and other  

similar categories of employees.  

                                                           1 (1993) 4 SCC 727.

13    

  The Respondent had failed to produce any evidence  

whatsoever to support his claim for regularization.  

5.2. The Respondent had sought to have his name included  

in the final list recommended for regularization by  

colluding with certain officials of the Appellant –  

Authority, who had interpolated his name in the final  

list forwarded to the Authority.  

5.3. The Appellant – Authority has filed a copy of the original  

list dated 12.09.2000 prepared by the Divisional  

Engineer, Mohali. The said list included the names of 21  

employees whose names were initially recommended for  

regularization.  

  A perusal of the list dated 12.09.2000 reveals that the  

Respondent’s name was initially not recommended for  

regularization. However, in the final list forwarded to  

the Appellant – Authority, the Respondent’s name was  

interpolated.   

5.4. An enquiry was duly conducted to determine whether  

wrong information had been supplied by the concerned  

officials of the Authority, so that the Respondent could  

get the benefit of regularization.

14    

  The enquiry conducted by the Appellant – Authority  

revealed that the officials were guilty of supplying wrong  

information to the authorities regarding the period of  

service rendered by some daily wagers, including the  

Respondent. The officials had failed to verify the  

information provided, before forwarding it to the  

Authority. As a consequence, punitive orders were  

passed against each of the officials.  

  In these circumstances, the Respondent was  

disentitled from getting the benefit of a regular  

appointment with the Appellant – Authority, in the  

absence of fulfilling the pre-requisite requirement.  

5.5. It is well settled that an order of regularization obtained  

by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the  

competent authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of  

law.2  

  In Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation & Anr.  

v. Intejam Ali Zafri,3 it was held that if the initial  

appointment itself is void, then the provisions of the  

                                                           2 Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 363.  3 (2006) 6 SCC 275.

15    

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable for  

terminating the services of such workman.  

  In a similar case, this Court in Bank of India v.  

Avinash D. Mandivikar,4 held that since the respondent  

had obtained his appointment by playing fraud, he  

could not be allowed to get the benefits thereof.  

6. In the present case, the Single Judge had held that “rightly or  

wrongly”, the Respondent had obtained regularization, and  

was therefore entitled to a disciplinary enquiry. The Division  

Bench affirmed the Judgment of the Single Judge.   

6.1. The High Court however failed to appreciate that the  

decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra)  

is applicable to “employees” of Government  

Departments. Since the very appointment of the  

Respondent on regular basis was illegal, he could not be  

treated as an “employee” of the Appellant – Authority.  

  In Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. v. Jharkhand Gramin  

Bank & Ors.,5 this Court held that service rendered in  

pursuance of an illegal appointment or promotion  

                                                           4 (2005) 7 SCC 690.  5 (2010) 1 SCC 345.

16    

cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of a  

valid and lawful appointment or promotion.  

6.2. The illegality of such an appointment goes to the root of  

the Respondent’s absorption as a regular employee. The  

Respondent could not be considered to be an  

“employee”, and would not be entitled to any benefits  

under the Regulations applicable to employees of the  

Appellant – Authority.  

  Therefore, the High Court erroneously placed reliance  

on the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad  

(supra), which would not be applicable to the facts of  

the present case.  

7. The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as envisaged  

under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any other  

disciplinary rules did not arise in the present case since the  

Respondent was admittedly not an “employee” of the  

Appellant – Authority, and did not hold a civil post under the  

State Government.6 He was merely a daily wager on the  

muster rolls of the Appellant – Authority.  

                                                           6 The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kirti Narayan Prasad, 2018 (15) SCALE 352; Superintendent of  Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu, (2007) 2 SCC 335.

17    

8. It is abundantly clear from the facts of the case, and the  

material on record that the regularization of the services of  

the Respondent was illegal and invalid. The Respondent was  

provided a full opportunity to adduce evidence to establish  

that he had 3 years’ continuous service prior to 22.01.2001.  

However, he failed to furnish any proof whatsoever to  

substantiate his claim.  

9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Civil Appeal is  

allowed, and the Order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the  

Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is set  

aside.  

  The appointment of the Respondent on regular basis was  

invalid since the Respondent did not have the pre-requisite  

experience of 3 years’ continuous service prior to 22.01.2001.  

  The Respondent had sought to secure regularization on the  

basis of interpolation in the final list of employees  

recommended for regularization. Such an appointment would  

be illegal and void ab initio, and cannot be sustained.  

  The Appellant – Authority rightly terminated the  

Respondent vide Order dated 22.05.2003.

18    

  The Respondent is however entitled to withdraw the  

amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards Costs, deposited by the  

Appellant – Authority pursuant to the Interim Order dated  

22.11.2018 passed by this Court. The Registry is directed to  

release the said amount in favour of the Respondent.  

Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.  

Ordered accordingly.  

.....................................J.  (UDAY UMESH LALIT)  

 .…...............………………J.  

(INDU MALHOTRA)  

   New Delhi,  April 15, 2019.