UNION OF INDIA Vs. TULSI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the respondents in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4965/90 filed aggrieved by the order dated 7. 5. 1997 made by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4965/90. The respondent herein filed the said writ petition challenging the order dated 13. 10. 1989 passed by the appellant no. 3 discharging him from service and for quashing the same. Further the respon- dent sought for reinstating him in service with back wages and all other consequential benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of on 3. 11. 1995 by the learned Single Judge placing on record that the learned counsel for the respondent made a statement on his behalf that he did not want back wages and that he was mainly concerned with the pensionary benefits; that the learned counsel for the appellants tried to support the impugned order, but the same was not pressed much and it was left to the Court to pass an appropriate order. In that view, the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order dated 13. 10. 1989 and directed that the respondent be treated as retired from service with effect from 28. 2. 1993 on completing 20 years of service. But, no other benefits of service including back wages etc. were granted. However, the appellants challenged the said order of the learned Single Judge in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 387/96 and which appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on 8. 1. 1997 (1) and the matter was remanded with a direction to re-hear the writ petition on merits and to decide the same in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of the order. After remand, the lear- ned Singh Judge, by the impugned order in this appeal, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 13. 10. 1989 discharging the respondent from service. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the respondent had already completed 20 years of service on 28. 2. 1993 did not give direction for reinstatement, but directed the appellants to treat the respondent as retired from service with eff- ect from 28. 2. 1993 and to grant him full back wages till that date and other consequential benefits of service as if his services were never terminated. The learned Single Judge further directed the appellants to continue to pay the pensionary benefits to the respondent which they were paying till January, 1997. The learned Single Judge also imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants. Hence, the appellants aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 7. 5. 1997 (2) are before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that (1) even though the order of discharge did not contain reasons, but it was the one, passed after perusal of th reply given by the respondent to the show cause notice, which is evi- dent from the records; in a case like this recording detailed reasons relating to the members of the Air Force, was not at all required; however, no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the respondent by the order of discharge as he was a habitual offender having had four red marked entries, which entries had become final, inasmuch as, the respondent had not challenged those entries under Rule 33; (2) the new amended policy dated 18. 12. 1996 was not at all applicable to the case of the respondent and the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the new amended policy dated 18. 12. 1996 is applicable to the case of the respondent; a plain reading of the new amended policy dated 18. 12. 1996 (Annex. R/3 to the appeal) itself shows that it did not apply to the proceedings pending before the Courts; it applies only to the cases which were under process before the concerned authorities of the Air Force; and (3) the learned Single Judge was not right in awarding exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered from the concerned officers, inasmuch as, the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge in the same writ petition was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court while allowing the appeal; having regard to the new amended policy Annex. R/3 and taking note of the fact that the respondent did not challenge the red entries against him under Rule 33, it could not be said that the appellants took up a frivolous litigation so as to impose exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/-

(3.) IN the light of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the following points arise for our consideration:- " (1) Whether the new amended policy dated 18. 12. 1996 (Annex. R/3 to the appeal) is applicable to the case of the respondent; (2) Whether the impugned order of discharge dated 13. 10. 1989 is unsustainble on account of violation of the principles of natural justice; and (3) Whether the order of the learned Single Judge imposing exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants on the ground that they en- gaged in vexatious litigation is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. " Point No. 1