IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4601 OF 2009

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS    Appellant(s)

Versus

V. SHANMUGANANTHAN   Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1.          Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order

dated 19.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ

Petition No. 13804 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition

filed by  the respondent herein and set  aside  the order  of  punishment of

removal from service imposed on the respondent  while  holding that the

respondent is not entitled to any back wages.

3. This appeal relates to a checkered career.

4. The starting point of this litigation is transfer of the respondent from

New Delhi to Oil Duliajan (Assam) in the month of December, 1993.  At that

point of time, the respondent was working as an Inspector of Central

Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CISF’) in New Delhi.

He was required to report at CISF Unit, Oil Duliajan on 28.12.1993.

However, the respondent failed to do so and did not join after getting the

relieving order on 13.12.1993.  

5.         Since the respondent did not report for duty for 2 years and 4 months,

1

despite the call up notice being sent to him on  30th  May, 1994, a charge

memorandum under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969 was issued to him on 21st

August, 1995 for unauthorizedly overstaying the joining time. On 20 th

October, 1995, the respondent submitted his representation and pleaded not

guilty. The respondent asserted that this inability of his to report, was owing

to him meeting with an accident in Delhi on 06.12.1993.   

6. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the

respondent.   The disciplinary authority, Commandant, CISF Unit, Oil

Duliajan passed an order on 31.07.1997 exonerating the respondent from

the charges.

7. This order was suo­moto reviewed by DIG, CISF, Oil Duliajan on 13.08.2000

who awarded penalty of withholding one increment for a period of 3 years

with cumulative effect. The respondent went on a revision against the same

wherein, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs set aside the  suo­moto  review

but directed a de novo enquiry from the stage of conclusion of evidence on

ground of discrepancy in medical papers.

8. During the course of this  de novo  enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority

awarded penalty of “removal from service” to the respondent on 02.02.2000

which was therein confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 08.05.2000 and

Revisional Authority on 24.05.2001.

9. The respondent approached the Madras High Court against the same which

in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction partly allowed the appeal and quashed

the  punishment for being disproportionate and exorbitant.  However, the

respondent was held not to be entitled to back­wages, though period of his

2

leave was to be counted for all service benefits.

10. Pursuant to this order of Madras High Court, the respondent

approached the appellants for reinstatement in service. This was, however,

responded to by a letter dated 7th/8th June, 2007, which reads as under,

“REGD./AD POST Government of India

Office of the Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force/NES

(Ministry of Home Affairs)

Premises No.553, Kolkata Township,

Kasba, Kolkata­107

No.V­14013/NES/LC/2001/3215            Dated:07/08 June,07

To V.Shanmuganathan,Ex­Insp/Min. (Address as per writ petition) S/o K. Vairakannu, Plot No.57, Kannammal Street, Gurusamy Nagar, Madanandapuram, Porur, Chennai 600 116

Subject: WP NO. 13804/2001 FILED BY EX­INSP/MIN.V. SHANMUGANATHAN FORMERLY OF CISF UNIT 12TH RES. BN. FARAKKA IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

It is to inform you that your  application  dated  12.05.2007 for re­ instatement in service with reference to judgment and order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras has been received by FHQrs. A SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.05.2007 against the above judgment order. On disposal of the same further action will be taken.

(VED PRAKASH) ADDL.DY.INSPECTOR GENERAL

FOR INSPECTOR GENERAL/NES”

11. It is owing to this communication that the respondent claims that he could

not join the services. The respondent superannuated in 2010.

12. Taking into consideration all the facts and after hearing the learned

3

counsel for the parties  at length,  we think  it  proper to  modify the order

passed by the High Court to the following extent:­

The punishment of the respondent is substituted to be of “compulsory

retirement from service” from that of “removal from service”.  However, the

respondent is entitled to retiral benefits, as per Rules, from the date of the

letter issued by the appellants, owing to which he was not reinstated in the

service pending disposal  of  present  proceedings, i.e. from 07th/08th  June,

2007.

13.With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of.

14.  No order as to costs.

                                         ........................J.

                                    (N.V. RAMANA)

                     ........................J.                 (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

New Delhi, October 25, 2018

4