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.