Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3935 of 2013

Shri Anant R. Kulkarni … Appellant

Versus

Y.P. Education Society & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1.This appeal has been preferred against the impugned

judgment and order dated 4.10.2011 of the High Court of

Judicature of Bombay in Letters Patent Appeal No.171 of 2011

arising out of Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2003, by way of which

the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of

the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the School Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), quashing the enquiry

against the appellant, while giving liberty to respondent Nos.1

Page 2 and 2 to hold a fresh enquiry on the charges levelled against the

appellant.

2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are

that:

A.The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the

school run by the respondents on 7.6.1965, and was promoted

as the Head Master of the said school on 21.6.1979.

B.A new Management Committee came into power in the

year 2000, and began to raise allegations of misconduct against

the appellant, as the appellant had certain apprehensions with

respect to the eligibility of certain office bearers of the

Management Committee.

C.The respondents-management issued show-cause notice

dated 21.2.2001 to the appellant, under Rule 28 of the

Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 1981’), seeking an

explanation as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be

initiated against him, for his alleged misconduct. The appellant

submitted his reply on 3.3.2001, and also challenged the

2

Page 3 eligibility of some of the elected members of the Management

Committee.

D.The Management Committee, vide resolution dated

4.3.2001 took a decision to hold disciplinary proceedings

against the appellant as per the provisions of Rule 36 of the

Rules 1981, and in pursuance thereof, a chargesheet dated

17.5.2001 containing 12 charges of misconduct, was served

upon the appellant. The appellant vide letter dated 1.7.2001,

submitted his clarifications with respect to the said charges that

had been levelled against him.

E.An Enquiry Committee consisting of two members

instead of three, as per the Rules 1981, conducted the enquiry

and submitted its enquiry report on 20.5.2002, making a

recommendation that the appellant be dismissed from service.

The said enquiry report was accepted by the Management

Committee, and the services of the appellant were terminated

vide order dated 24.5.2002 w.e.f. 31.5.2002.

F.Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said termination

order by filing Appeal No.65 of 2002, before the Tribunal. The

3

Page 4 respondents contested the appeal. However, upon reaching the

age of superannuation, the appellant stood retired on 30.9.2002.

G.The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2002

held, that none of the charges levelled against the appellant

stood proved, and that the enquiry had not been conducted

according to the Rules 1981. Thus, the termination order

against the appellant was quashed.

H.Aggrieved, the respondents-management filed Writ

Petition No.1849 of 2003 before the High Court, and the

learned Single Judge decided the said writ petition vide

judgment and order dated 20.4.2011, upholding the judgment of

the Tribunal, and found the enquiry to be entirely defective and

thus, illegal.

I.The respondents-management filed Letters Patent Appeal

No.171 of 2011, and the Division Bench too, upheld the

judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the

Tribunal, but simultaneously also held, that the respondents

were at liberty to proceed with the enquiry afresh, as regards the

said charges.

Hence, this appeal.

4

Page 5 3.Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant, has submitted that the charges have been found to be

vague, and that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the

statutory Rules 1981, and further that none of the charges

reflected embezzlement or mis-appropriation, and cast no doubt

upon the integrity of the appellant whatsoever. As the appellant

stood retired on 30.9.2002, the question of holding a fresh

enquiry in 2011 could not arise. The court does not lack

competence to decide the case on merits even if it comes to the

conclusion that there has been violation of statutory rules,

principles of natural justice or the order also stood vitiated on

some other technical ground. There is no statutory rule

permitting the Management Committee to hold an enquiry

against a person who has retired a decade ago, particularly

when the school is a government-aided school, and the

appellant-employee receives pension from the State. Thus, the

appeal deserves to be allowed.

4.Per contra, Shri Braj Kishore Mishra, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents, has submitted that a person

cannot be allowed to go scot-free simply because he has retired.

5

Page 6 An enquiry can be conducted against him, and he can be

punished by withholding either full or part of his pension. No

fault can be found with the impugned judgment and thus, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5.We have considered the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.The appeal raises the following substantial questions of

law:-

(i)In case the punishment is set aside by the Court/Tribunal

as the enquiry stood vitiated for technical reasons, whether the

employer is entitled to hold the enquiry afresh from the point it

stood vitiated;

(ii)Whether the enquiry can be quashed on the ground of

delay;

(iii)Whether the enquiry can be permitted to be held on

vague and unspecified charges; and

(iv) Under what circumstances enquiry can be conducted

against the delinquent employee who has retired on reaching

the age of superannuation.

6

Page 7 In case the punishment is set aside:

7.It is a settled legal proposition that, once the Court set

asides an order of punishment on the ground, that the enquiry

was not properly conducted, the Court should not severely

preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance

with law. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary

authority, to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood

vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law.

However, resorting to such a course depends upon the gravity

of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine the

magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent

employee. It is in view of this, that courts/tribunals, are not

competent to quash the charge-sheet and related disciplinary

proceedings, before the same are concluded, on the

aforementioned grounds.

(Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B.

Karunakar etc.etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee

Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors.,

(2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. v. R.S.

7

Page 8 Pandey & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India v.

Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161).

Enquiry at belated stage:

8.The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the

departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of

delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power

is de hors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that the

court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of

judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet

or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary

proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by court. The same

principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in

conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and

circumstances of the case in question, must be carefully

examined, taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of

charges involved therein. The Court has to consider the

seriousness and magnitude of the charges and while doing so

the Court must weigh all the facts, both for and against the

delinquent officers and come to the conclusion, which is just

8

Page 9 and proper considering the circumstances involved. The

essence of the matter is that the court must take into

consideration all relevant facts, and balance and weigh the

same, so as to determine, if it is infact in the interest of clean

and honest administration, that the said proceedings are allowed

to be terminated, only on the ground of a delay in their

conclusion. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma &

Anr., AIR 1987 SC 943; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani

Singh & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 1308; State of Punjab & Ors. v.

Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570; State of Andhra

Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833; M.V. Bijlani

v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3475; Union of India

& Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906; The

Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Prabash Chandra

Mirdha, AIR 2012 SC 2250; and Chairman, LIC of India &

Ors. v. A. Masilamani, JT (2012) 11 SC 533).

Enquiry – on vague charges :

9.In Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. The State of West

Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752 this Court held, that it is not

permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same

9

Page 10 do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an

effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of

the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should

put up for rebuttal thereof. The Court observed as under:–

“The grounds on which it is proposed to take

action have to be reduced to the form of a definite

charge or charges which have to be communicated

to the person charged together with a statement of

the allegations on which each charge is based and

any other circumstance which it is proposed to be

taken into consideration in passing orders has to

be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is

one of the specific contents of a reasonable or

adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a

person is not told clearly and definitely what the

allegations are on which the charges preferred

against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by

projecting his own imagination, discover all the

facts and circumstances that may be in the

contemplation of the authorities to be established

against him.” (Emphasis added)

10.Where the chargesheet is accompanied by the statement

of facts and the allegations are not specific in the chargesheet,

but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a

situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be

held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the

enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be

served a chargesheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific

10

Page 11 and definite description of the charge against him. When

statement of allegations are not served with the chargesheet, the

enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation

of the principles of natural justice. Evidence adduced should

not be perfunctory, even if the delinquent does not take the

defence of, or make a protest with against that the charges are

vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for

the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly in

respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences.

What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent

knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific,

definite and giving details of the incident which formed the

basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained

on vague charges.

(Vide: State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama

Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723; Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan,

AIR 1986 SC 995; U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Ram Chandra

Yadav, AIR 2000 SC 3596; Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan

Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78; and Anil Gilurker v.

11

Page 12 Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr., (2011) 14

SCC 379).

11.The purpose of holding an enquiry against any person is

not only with a view to establish the charges levelled against

him or to impose a penalty, but is also conducted with the

object of such an enquiry recording the truth of the matter, and

in that sense, the outcome of an enquiry may either result in

establishing or vindicating his stand, and hence result in his

exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority

concerned is a paramount necessity.

Enquiry against a retired employee:

12.This Court in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v.

NOIDA & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2112, examined the issue, and

held that the competence of an authority to hold an enquiry

against an employee who has retired, depends upon the

statutory rules which govern the terms and conditions of his

service, and while deciding the said case, reliance was placed

on various earlier judgments of this Court including B.J. Shelat

v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1109; Ramesh

12

Page 13 Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank & Anr., (2007) 9

SCC 15; and UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor,

AIR 2008 SC 1831.

13.In State of Assam & Ors. v. Padma Ram Borah, AIR

1965 SC 473, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that it is

not possible for the employer to continue with the enquiry after

the delinquent employee stands retired. The Court observed:-

“According to the earlier order of the State

Government itself, the service of the respondent

had come to an end on March 31, 1961. The State

Government could not by unilateral action create

a fresh contract of service to take effect from

April 1, 1961. If the State Government wished to

continue the service of the respondent for a further

period, the State Government should have issued a

notification before March 31, 1961.”

(Emphasis added)

While deciding the said issue, the Court placed reliance on the

judgment in R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937

PC 27.

14.In State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, AIR 1970 SC 214,

this court observed:

“There can be no doubt that if disciplinary action

is sought to be taken against a government servant

13

Page 14 it must be done before he retires as provided by

the said rule. If a disciplinary enquiry cannot be

concluded before the date of such retirement, the

course open to the Government is to pass an order

of suspension and refuse to permit the concerned

public servant to retire and retain him in service

till such enquiry is completed and a final order is

passed therein.”

15.In Kirti Bhusan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR

1986 SC 2116, this Court held as under:

“…. We are of the view that in the absence of such

a provision which entitled the State Government to

revoke an order of retirement……. which had

become effective and final, the order passed by the

State Government revoking the order of retirement

should be held as having been passed without the

authority of law and is liable to be set aside. It,

therefore, follows that the order of dismissal

passed thereafter was also a nullity.”

16.In Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. &

Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1841, this Court observed:

“… There is also no provision for conducting a

disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the

appellant and nor any provision stating that in

case misconduct is established, a deduction could

be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant

had retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was

no authority vested in the Corporation for

continuing the departmental enquiry even for the

purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral

14

Page 15 benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of

such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry

had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full

retiral benefits on retirement.”

17.In U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Kamal

Swaroop Tondon, (2008) 2 SCC 41, this Court dealt with a

case wherein statutory corporation had initiated proceedings for

recovery of the financial loss from an employee after his

retirement from service. This Court approved such a course

observing that in the case of retirement, master and servant

relationship continue for grant of retrial benefits. The

proceedings for recovery of financial loss from an employee is

permissible even after his retirement and the same can also be

recovered from the retrial benefits of the said employee.

18.Thus, it is evident from the above, that the relevant rules

governing the service conditions of an employee are the

determining factors as to whether and in what manner the

domestic enquiry can be held against an employee who stood

retired after reaching the age of superannuation. Generally, if

the enquiry has been initiated while the delinquent employee

was in service, it would continue even after his retirement, but

15

Page 16 nature of punishment would change. The punishment of

dismissal/removal from service would not be imposed.

19.The case requires to be examined in the light of the

aforesaid legal propositions.

The following charges were framed against the appellant:

(a)Charge No.1:-The first respondent did not submit

dead stock verification report in spite of several

letters.

(b)Charge No.2:-The first respondent did not submit

the documents such as cash books, ledgers and

voucher files in spite of demands made by the

management.

(c) Charge No.3:- relates to not calling School

Committee meeting and causing loss of Rs.48851/-

as no timely approval was obtained for that

expenditure from the school committee.

(d) Charge No.4:- The first respondent did not send

appointment proposal dated 4.9.2000 of Mr.

Ghadge for approval to the Education Officer

(Secondary) Z.P. Solapur and salary of the said

teacher could not be paid .

(e) Charge No.5:- The Respondent prepared budget

2001-2002 and forwarded to the management

directly without obtaining sanction of the School

Committee.

(f) Charge No.6:- The first respondent obstructed

working of the management and the School

Committee on the ground that he had challenged

16

Page 17 the election of the office bearers before the Joint

Charity Commissioner, Latur even though there

was no stay/injunction.

(g) Charge No.7:- The first respondent did not attend

any of the 11 meetings of the Managing

Committee in the capacity as a Head Master.

(h) Charge No.8:- The first respondent did not submit

explanation regarding his teaching workload

though asked for by the management as per letter

No. S/167 dated 11.12.2000.

(i) Charge No.9:- The first respondent did not give his

explanation about donation of Rs.4900/ - given by

the Lioness Club of Barsi demanded by the

management as per letter No. S/174 dated

27.12.2000.

(j) Charge No.10:- The respondent did not reply letter

no. S/131 dated 10.10.2000 in respect of Internet

connection.

(k) Charge No.ll:- The first respondent did not explain

excessive telephone bills as stated by him in his

letter no.L/83 dated 26.10.2000.

(1) Charge No.12:- The first respondent did not

submit report as to his activities during two days

on duty leave in the office of Education Officer

(Secondary) Solapur and the Deputy Director of

Education, Pune Region, Pune.

The charges were found proved and punishment was

imposed.

17

Page 18 20.The Tribunal examined all the issues involved, and

recorded its specific findings as under:

“The charge No.11 is in respect of excessive telephone

bills. The telephone bill for the academic year 1999-

2000 is Rs.3931/-. According to Management this is

excessive bill. The charge is vague. The explanation

given by appellant that specifically no call was made for

private purpose. The objection regarding call at Chennai

is properly explained that this call was made to the

Institute of Brilliant Tutorials as it was required for the

students of Xth standard for guiding them for career for

Engineering. The Institute by names Brilliant Tutorials is

famous well known academy and some phone calls made

to it are well within the powers of Head Master. The

total bill of Rs.3931/- for a High School during a year

cannot be said to be excessive particularly when many

of the calls are made to Pune and Thane. These calls have

properly been explained that Writ petition was filed

against the school and these calls were made to the

Advocate concerned in connection with the Writ Petition.

Calling such an explanation on every call by the

Management to the Head Master is nothing but over

victimizing or interference of Management in day-to-day

business of the school.

xx xx xx xx

There is no evidence brought before the Inquiry

Committee to hold guilty for these charges. But the

members seem to have anxious to hold the guilty of the

charges to the appellant. They have based their

conclusion on some thread of evidence ignoring all other

circumstances and evidence in favour of appellant”

The Tribunal further stated as under:

18

Page 19 (i) Charge No.1, is in respect of not submitting the

documents papers asked by the Management particularly

pertaining to dead stock.

(ii) Charge No.2 is regarding the Registers and journals

regarding school fees, voucher files etc. The accounts of

school are audited by the authorized auditor. Under these

circumstances, calling these record seems to be only for

finding loop holes. This is a sort of interference of the

Management in day-to-day work of the school, which is

unwarranted. In spite of this, the explanation shows that

there is sufficient compliance of direction and there is no

insubordination.

(iii) Charge No.3, is not calling meetings of school

committee as per code….and the explanation submitted

by appellant not calling the meetings is acceptable.

(iv) Charge No.4, is in respect of not forwarding proposal

of Shikshan Sevek to the Education Officer. The reasons

explained by the appellant are acceptable.

(v) Charge No.5, is in respect of submitting the budget

for the year 2001-2002 to the Management without

approval of school committee. When the Management

has accepted this budget this charge does not survive. As

such when the Management has directly accepted the

budget and budget proposals, this charge ought not to

have been framed at all.

xx xx xx xx

(vii) Charge No.7, is in respect of not attending the

Management council meeting. This charge is also purely

technical. The explanation of the appellant is that

intimation of meeting was given by the Management at

the 11

th

hour before few hours of the meeting without

providing agenda of the meeting…. The explanation

needs sympathetic consideration and the allegations if at

19

Page 20 all considered, cannot be a ground for termination of

appellant’s service.

(viii) Charge No.8, is in respect of workload of about six

hours in a week to be discharged by the Head

Master….Explanation given by the appellant is that the

hard subjects of science and mathematics were given to

new comers as appellant was to retire in near future. He

wanted that new man should be well prepared before

appellant leaves the school. This explanation is

reasonable and acceptable.

In the conclusion, I hold that the evidence on

record is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the

charges. The net result of the scrutiny of the proceedings

is that the inquiry seems to have been initiated on very

technical flaws which lead to only conclusion that it was

pre-determined and pre-judicial inquiry. As explained

above, there is no sufficient proof on record to hold that

the charges are proved.”

21.The Tribunal, as well as the learned Single Judge of the

High Court have recorded a categorical finding of fact to the

effect that initiation of departmental enquiry against the

appellant had been done with malafide intention to harass him.

The charges were not specific and precise; infact, they were

vague and unspecific. Furthermore, the Management committee

had failed to observe the procedure prescribed in Rules 36 & 37

of Rules, 1981. The said Rules 36 & 37, prescribe a complete

procedure for the purpose of holding an inquiry, wherein it is

20

Page 21 clearly stated that an inquiry committee should have minimum

three members, one representative from the Management

committee, one to be nominated by the employees from

amongst themselves, and one to be chosen by the Chief

Executive Officer, from amongst a panel of teachers who have

been awarded National/State awards. In the instant case, there

was only a two member committee. The procedure prescribed

under the Rules is based on the Principles of Natural Justice and

fair play, to ensure that an employee of a private school, may

not be condemned unheard. It is pertinent to note that the

Management committee failed to prove even a single charge

against the appellant.

22.Therefore the Tribunal, as well as the learned Single

Judge have both made it clear that the inquiry had not been

conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rules 36 and 37

of the Rules 1981. However, they themselves have dealt with

each and every charge, and have recorded their findings on

merit. The present case is certainly not one where a punishment

has been set aside only on a technical ground, that the inquiry

stood vitiated for want of a particular requirement. Thus, in

21

Page 22 light of such a fact situation, the Division Bench has

committed an error by giving liberty to the respondents to hold

a fresh enquiry.

23.The Division Bench after examining the case, held as

under:

(i) If there was defect found in the manner in which

the departmental enquiry was held, liberty should

have been given to the management to hold a fresh

enquiry if so advised, and if the appellant was found

guilty thereafter, punishment could have been

imposed on him as permissible under law.

(ii) Once the Tribunal and the learned Single judge

have found that there was infact, a defect in the

manner in which the enquiry was held, there was no

question of them recording findings on merit to the

effect that the charges were not proved against the

appellant.

(iii) However, before taking any steps towards

holding an enquiry, the management would have to

make payment of the full salary owed to the appellant,

22

Page 23 for the period between the date of termination of the

appellant from service, till the date of his retirement.

24.The conclusion reached by the Division Bench that the

Tribunal and the learned Single Judge had found that there was

a defect in the manner in which the enquiry was held, and

therefore there was no question of it recording a finding on

merit to the effect that charges levelled against the appellant

were not proved, is also not sustainable in law. It is always

open for the Court in such a case, to examine the case on merits

as well, and in case the Court comes to the conclusion that there

was infact, no substance in the allegations, it may not permit the

employer to hold a fresh enquiry. Such a course may be

necessary to save the employee from harassment and

humiliation.

25.In the instant case, there is no allegation of

misappropriation/embezzlement or any charge which may cast

a doubt upon the integrity of the appellant, or further, anything

which may indicate even the slightest moral turpitude on the

part of the appellant. The charges relate to accounts and to the

23

Page 24 discharge of his functions as the Headmaster of the school. The

appellant has provided satisfactory explanation for each of the

allegations levelled against him. Moreover, he has retired in the

year 2002. The question of holding any fresh enquiry on such

vague charges is therefore, unwarranted and uncalled for.

26.The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,

Solapur, had filed an affidavit before the High Court, wherein it

was stated that a dispute had arisen between the trustees, and in

view thereof, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant. The

respondents terminated the services of the appellant and many

other employees, as a large number of cases had been filed

against the Management Committee without impleading the

State of Maharashtra, though the same was a necessary party, as

the school was a government-aided school. Rules 36 and 37 of

the Rules 1981, which prescribe the procedure of holding an

enquiry have been violated. The charges levelled against the

appellant were entirely vague, irrelevant and unspecific. As per

statutory rules, the appellant was not allowed to be represented

by another employee. Thus, the procedure prescribed under

Rule 57(1) of the Rules 1981 stood violated. No chargesheet

24

Page 25 containing the statement of allegations was ever served. A

summary of the proceedings, alongwith the statements of

witnesses, as is required under Rule 37(4) of the Rules 1981,

was never forwarded to the appellant. He was not given an

opportunity to explain himself, and no charge was proved with

the aid of any documentary evidence. There existed no charge

against the appellant regarding his integrity, embezzlement or

mis-appropriation. Therefore, the question of mis-appropriation

of Rs.4,900/- in respect of a telephone bill remained entirely

irrelevant. Furthermore, the same was not a charge of mis-

appropriation. The learned Single Judge has also agreed with

the same. The Division Bench though also in agreement, has

given liberty to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry.

27.We may add that the court has not been apprised of any

rule that may confer any statutory power on the management to

hold a fresh enquiry after the retirement of an employee. In the

absence of any such authority, the Division Bench has erred in

creating a post-retirement forum that may not be permissible

under law.

25

Page 26 28.In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, none

of the charges are specific and precise. The charges have not

been accompanied by any statement of allegations, or any

details thereof. It is not therefore permissible, for the

respondents to hold an enquiry on such charges. Moreover, it is

a settled legal proposition that a departmental enquiry can be

quashed on the ground of delay provided the charges are not

very grave.

29.In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Tribunal

as well as the learned Single Judge have examined all the

charges on merit and also found that the enquiry has not been

conducted as per the Rules 1981, it was not the cause of the

Management Committee which had been prejudiced, rather it

had been the other way around. In such a fact-situation, it was

not necessary for the Division Bench to permit the respondents

to hold a fresh enquiry on the said charges and that too, after

more than a decade of the retirement of the appellant.

30.In view of the above, appeal succeeds and is allowed.

The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is

26

Page 27 modified to the extent referred to hereinabove. The appellant

shall be entitled to recover all his salary and retirement dues, if

not paid already. No costs.

.............................……………………........................J.

(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

.................……………………................................. J.

(FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA)

NEW DELHI

APRIL 26, 2013

27