UNION OF INDIA Vs S.P.VERMA
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: C.A. No.-001955-001955 / 2014
Diary number: 15163 / 2008
Advocates: ANIL KATIYAR Vs
P. VINAY KUMAR
Page 1
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1955 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18724 of 2008]
Union of India & Ors. .. Appellant(s)
versus
S.P. Verma .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The dispute in this appeal relates to the validity of an
order dated 18.2.1998 of dismissal passed by the
appellants against respondent. The dismissal came as
a measure of punishment for proved misconduct on
account of the respondent having occupied a parcel of
Page 2
2
land owned by the Indian Railways with whom the
respondent was employed at the relevant point of time.
The dismissal order was challenged by the respondent
before the Central Administrative Tribunal who quashed
the same by its order dated 17.5.2007. The appellants
questioned the said order of dismissal before the High
Court of Allahabad in W.P. No.30501 of 2007 which was
disposed of by a Division Bench of that Court by an
order dated 8.2.2008. The High Court was of the view
that the Tribunal committed no error in quashing the
order impugned before it but gave liberty to the
Disciplinary Authority to initiate departmental
proceedings in accordance with law on the happening
of any of the events mentioned in the order of the
Tribunal. The High Court held that since the appeal
filed by the respondent-employee against the order of
eviction passed by the Estate Officer had not been
disposed of, the appellant would be free to take further
steps in the matter once the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3
3
3. When the matter was listed on 23.11.2012, learned
Additional Solicitor General submitted that the appeal
filed by the respondent-employee has since been
dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the
Estate Officer has thereby attained finality as no further
proceedings have been taken by the employee and
there is no impediment for further action to be taken
against the respondent-employee in accordance with
the liberty reserved to the appellants by the Tribunal as
also by the High Court.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court provided an option to the parties to find a
suitable middle course that meets the ends of justice
making another round of long drawn proceedings
unnecessary and the matter was periodically adjourned
to various dates.
5. From the submissions now made by Mr. Rakesh K.
Khanna, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for the appellants and Mr. B.K. Mishra, learned counsel
Page 4
4
appearing for the respondent, we come to know that no
amicable solution could be reached between the parties
in spite of long passage of time and the matter has to
be dealt with on merit. Admittedly, the appeal
preferred by the respondent-employee under Section 9
of Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants
Act, 1971 was pending when the punishment of
dismissal was inflicted on respondent-employee and on
that ground the Tribunal quashed the dismissal order
but gave liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to restart
the proceedings after the final outcome of the appeal or
the other event mentioned therein. The High Court
upheld the said order of the Tribunal and in our view it
rightly did so and no interference is called for with the
same.
6. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
…………………………….J. (T.S.
Thakur)
Page 5
5
……………………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi; February 11, 2014.