As per case facts, the respondent, a contract conductor, was terminated after a departmental enquiry proved misconduct, and his appeals were rejected. He bypassed Industrial Disputes Act remedies, directly approaching ...
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12243 OF 2018
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.7810 OF 2014)
APSRTC & ORS.
Versus
.. APPELLANT(S)
G. KONDAL RAO ..RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
M.R.SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
Appeal No. 246 of 2013 the original respondents–corporation–
employer has preferred the present appeal.
1
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as
under :
a.That the respondent was appointed as a contract
conductor and was working with the appellant
corporation.
b.That he was subjected to departmental enquiry.
c.That following the report of the Enquiry Officer, his
services came to be terminated.
d.That the departmental appeal also came to be rejected.
e.Review petition before the Regional Manager also came
to be rejected on merits.
f.That thereafter straightway and without recourse to
remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act, the
workmanoriginal writ petitioner approached the High
Court invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ
Petition No.25970 of 2012.
g.That the learned Single Judge allowed the petition
holding that the matter was not resintegra and was
covered by the earlier judgment of the learned Single
2
Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012.
Though on behalf of the corporation an effort was made
to distinguish the earlier decision on the ground that in
the present case a fullfledged enquiry has been held, this
distinction did not find acceptance by the learned Single
Judge and solely considering the decision of the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 and
without even considering the facts of the case, dispose of
the writ petition by directing the original respondents to
reengage the petitioner in service and extend the benefit
of continuity of service to him from the date of
termination till the date of his reengagement except for
the period during which he was absent. This was,
however, without monetary benefit and was directed to
count only for regularization.
h.The above order of the learned Single Judge was
affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal.
4. Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants has submitted that the Division Bench
has materially erred in affirming the order passed by the learned
3
Single Judge and without even considering the facts of the
individual case and that the Division Bench has not properly
appreciated the fact that learned Single Judge has amicably and
without proper application of the facts disposed of the writ
petition solely relying upon the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012,
which was not applicable at all. It is submitted in the present
case as such the original writ petitioner was dismissed from
service after holding departmental enquiry and after having held
the charges and the misconduct proved in a departmental
enquiry. It is submitted that the main judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench affirming the order passed by the
learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and required to be
quashed and set aside.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants herein and having considered the main judgment and
order passed by the learned Division Bench as well as the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the learned
Single Judge without having regard to the facts of the individual
cases, mechanically issued the directions exclusively relying on
4
the earlier decision dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of
2012. However, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
both have materially erred in not appreciating the facts that in
the present case the workman was dismissed from service after
holding the departmental enquiry and having all the charges of
misconduct proved, that was not the case in Writ Petition
No.2786 of 2012
6. We may also note that the earlier order of the learned Single
Judge dated 29.02.2012 was in a batch of cases, where
termination orders were issued without holding an enquiry in
certain cases and after holding an enquiry in others, though in
violation of the principles of natural justice. It was in that view of
the matter that the direction contained in Clause 6 of the
operative order provided that in cases where no enquiry was
conducted, the Corporation would be at liberty to conduct an
enquiry in accordance with law, on the allegations of misconduct.
7. Even otherwise such a direction cannot be issued by the
learned Single Judge without the termination being set aside. The
ground of continuity was not sustainable for the simple reason
that unless the order of termination is set aside, as a matter of
5
first principle, continuity cannot be granted. Continuity is
granted when the order of termination is set aside to ensure there
is no hiatus in service.
8. There is another reason why the judgment of the High Court
cannot be sustained. It is common ground that the appellant has
recruited personnel like the present respondent on contract after
a regular process of selection. Eventually, the contract
employees are to be regularised. Granting continuity of service to
a person such as the respondent, who was found to have
committed misconduct, would place him on the same footing as
other contractual employees who have a record without blemish.
Hence, once a fresh appointment was given to the respondent
and neither the termination nor the fresh engagement was placed
in issue, the grant of continuity of service by the High Court was
manifestly misconceived.
9. We find a considerable degree of merit in the submission of
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation
that in deciding the entire batch of cases by a common order, the
learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench unfortunately
lost sight of the facts of each individual case.
6
10. For the above reason, we allow the present appeal and
accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
26.04.2013 in Writ Appeal No.246 of 2013 as well as the
judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.25970 of 2012. No costs.
……………………………..............................J.
(DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)
.……….…………………….............................J.
( M.R. SHAH )
New Delhi,
December 07, 2018.
7
| <h1>Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Review in Service Matters: APSRTC & Ors. v. G. Kondal Rao</h1><p>The landmark ruling in <strong>APSRTC & Ors. v. G. Kondal Rao</strong> stands as a critical reference point in <strong>service law India</strong>, particularly concerning the scope of <strong>judicial review of departmental inquiry</strong> outcomes. This significant judgment from the Supreme Court of India is now readily available on CaseOn, offering legal professionals and students comprehensive insights into its implications.</p><h2>Case Summary: APSRTC & Ors. v. G. Kondal Rao</h2><p>This appeal arose from a decision by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which had directed the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to re-engage a dismissed conductor, G. Kondal Rao, and grant him continuity of service for regularization purposes. The Supreme Court meticulously examined the High Court's approach, ultimately finding it to be erroneous.</p><h3>Issue Presented</h3><p>The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the re-engagement and continuity of service for an employee whose services were terminated after a full-fledged departmental inquiry, solely based on a previous judgment that had distinct factual underpinnings.</p><h3>Relevant Legal Principles (Rule)</h3><p>The Supreme Court's decision reiterated several established legal principles concerning judicial review in service matters:</p><ul><li><strong>Distinction in Precedent Application:</strong> Courts must carefully examine the facts of an individual case and not mechanically apply precedents, especially when the factual matrix differs significantly.</li><li><strong>Prerequisites for Continuity of Service:</strong> Continuity of service can only be granted if the original order of termination is set aside. Without such an annulment, the concept of continuity does not legally arise.</li><li><strong>Scope of Article 226:</strong> While the High Court possesses broad powers under Article 226, these powers must be exercised judiciously, considering whether due process was followed in administrative actions like departmental inquiries.</li><li><strong>Departmental Inquiry vs. Natural Justice Violation:</strong> There is a crucial difference between a termination resulting from a departmental inquiry where misconduct is proven and one arising from a process that violated the principles of natural justice or lacked an inquiry altogether.</li></ul><h3>Analysis of the Supreme Court's Decision</h3><p>The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the High Court's reasoning, highlighting a fundamental flaw. The High Court, both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, had disposed of G. Kondal Rao's writ petition by solely relying on a prior judgment in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012. This mechanical application of precedent proved to be the core of the High Court's error.</p><p>The crucial distinction, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, was that in the present case, G. Kondal Rao's services were terminated after a comprehensive departmental inquiry where the charges of misconduct were duly proved. This was in stark contrast to the batch of cases in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012, where termination orders were either issued without any inquiry or after inquiries that violated the principles of natural justice. In those earlier cases, the corporation was specifically granted liberty to conduct inquiries where none had taken place.</p><p>The Supreme Court emphasized that a direction for continuity of service could not be issued without first setting aside the original termination order. To grant continuity to an individual found guilty of misconduct after a proper inquiry would unfairly place them on par with other contractual employees who had maintained unblemished records and were awaiting regularization through a legitimate selection process. Such a move, the Court concluded, was 'manifestly misconceived'. The High Court, by applying a common order to a batch of cases without delving into the specific facts of each individual matter, had lost sight of these critical distinctions.</p><p>For legal professionals analyzing complex rulings like APSRTC & Ors. v. G. Kondal Rao, CaseOn.in offers invaluable 2-minute audio briefs, distilling intricate legal arguments into concise, actionable insights for efficient case preparation.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Based on this detailed analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 26.04.2013 in Writ Appeal No. 246 of 2013, as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25970 of 2012. The Court underscored the necessity for judicial bodies to meticulously consider the specific facts of each case, rather than engaging in a mechanical application of precedents, particularly in matters involving service law and departmental inquiries.</p><h2>Why This Judgment Matters for Legal Professionals and Students</h2><p>The ruling in <strong>APSRTC & Ors. v. G. Kondal Rao</strong> serves as a vital lesson in:</p><ul><li><strong>Precedent Application:</strong> It strongly reminds legal practitioners and judges of the importance of distinguishing facts before applying judicial precedents. Not every case fits a mold, and mechanical application can lead to significant errors.</li><li><strong>Scope of Judicial Review:</strong> The judgment clarifies the boundaries of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing that it is not meant to re-appreciate evidence or overlook due process followed by administrative authorities.</li><li><strong>Service Law Integrity:</strong> It upholds the integrity of the departmental inquiry process and the consequences of proven misconduct, ensuring that employees found guilty after proper procedure are not arbitrarily equated with those who had no inquiry or faced procedural irregularities.</li><li><strong>Fairness and Equity:</strong> The ruling reinforces principles of fairness by preventing a situation where an employee with a proven misconduct record receives benefits akin to those with clean service records.</li></ul><h2>Disclaimer</h2><p>All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on any specific legal matter.</p> |
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....