UNION OF INDIA Vs. VASUDHA ANANT KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and it is directed against Appeal No. 361 of 1983 decided by the 7th Extra Assistant Judge, Pune. By that order, the Appeal Court had set aside the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1298 of 1982 by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, Briefly stated, the facts that are material for purpose of the decision of this second appeal are as follows:--

(2.) THE respondent before me Smt. Vasuda A. Kulkarni was at the relevant time an employee of the National Sample Survey Organization at Pune. She was working at that time as a clerk. She had joined the services of the National Sample Survey Organization on 19-3-1959 and was confirmed as a Lower Division Clerk on 20-5-1963. She was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk with effect from 28-1-1972. It is alleged that in the year, 1977, the respondent, in the course of her duties, committed certain acts of misconduct. On 4-8-1978, a memo-cum-charge-sheet was issued to the plaintiff accompanied by annexures and five articles of charges and statements of imputations. An enquiry was ordered and defendant No. 3 submitted a report to the effect that the plaintiff was, prima facie, guilty of the charges. The preliminary enquiry was held by defendant No. 3, who himself was working directly under the Assistant Director, Shri Krishnamurthy, who was defendant No. 2 to the initial suit. A grievance was made by the employee, who was the original plaintiff, that this enquiry was biased in so far as the genesis of the whole action was because of certain complaints made by her against defendant No. 2 and that, under these circumstances, there could be no fairness in instituting an enquiry against her at the hands of defendant No. 3, who was working as a direct subordinate of defendant No. 2. The basic challenge was with regard to the infringement of the principles of natural justice in so far as the plaintiff was not given a defence Counsel of her own choice and she also contended that she was not permitted a freehand in cross-examination of the departments witnesses. The decision in the enquiry went against the plaintiff, who was found guilty of all the five charges. On the basis of this report, defendant No. 2 passed an order of reversion of the plaintiff to the post of Lower Division Clerk for a period of three years. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the revision order to defendant No. 4, who was the Chief Administrative Officer, but the appeal came to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed two writ petitions before this Court which came to be rejected, principally, on the ground that the case raised disputed questions of fact. The plaintiff thereupon filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2732 of 1981, but the plaint was returned to her as she had not complied with the requirements of statutory notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After giving such a notice, the plaintiff re-instituted the proceedings, which were numbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 1289 of 1982. The learned trial Judge recorded evidence heard the parties and dismissed the suit by his judgment dated 8-4-1983. The plaintiff thereafter preferred Civil Appeal No. 361 of 1983, which came to be allowed on 22-2-1984. The learned Appellate Judge upheld the grievance projected by the appellant-plaintiff and recorded the finding that the departmental enquiry proceedings conducted against her are held to be illegal and null and void and the same were, consequently, quashed. By a subsidiary order, it was further declared that the service status of the appellant-plaintiff is not to be affected due to the impugned enquiry and that, consequently, the department was liable to restore the status of the appellant to the position as obtaining immediately prior to the initiation of the impugned departmental enquiry in all respects, including her pay and allowances and other incidental benefits of seniority in normal manner.

(3.) THE respondent-department thereafter filed the present Second Appeal. Shri Behere, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has sought to assail the appellate order on two grounds. In the first instance, it is his contention that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to scan the enquiry proceedings and to virtually sit in judgment over them. Secondly, he contended that having regard to the specific provisions under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to evaluate the evidence recorded in the departmental proceedings. As a corollary to this, however, Shri Behere submitted that even assuming that the Court had the power to examine the matter that it has very correctly and very specifically come to the conclusion that the ground on which the enquiry was challenged, namely, that there was infringement of the principles of natural justice, is downright wrong and baseless and that the Appeal Court was in total error in having interfered with this finding.