Page 1 of 8

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 9829 OF 2011

[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 24400 OF 2007 ]

S. LOGANATHAN ... Appellant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, who was working as a Junior Clerk in

the Subordinate Court at Yanam (Pondicherry), was dismissed

from the service on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings

by the Chief Judge, Pondicherry (for short “Chief Judge”)

vide order dated November 8, 2000. The appellant challenged

that order before the High Court of judicature at Madras by

filing a Writ Petition. His Writ Petition came to be

dismissed on June 11, 2007. It is from this order that the

present appeal, by special leave, arises.

3. On April 28, 1999, the appellant was issued a Charge

Memo setting out therein that he was liable to be proceeded

with the disciplinary action under Rule 14 of the Central

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

Page 2 of 8

2

1965 (for short “CCS Rules”). Along with the Charge-Memo,

Article of Charges was sent to the appellant. The Article

of Charges contained ten articles. An Inquiry Officer was

appointed and inquiry proceeded against the appellant. The

appellant filed his response by way of defence to the

Charge Memo and Article of Charges and denied the

allegations levelled against him. The appellant, after some

time, did not participate in the departmental inquiry. As a

result of which, the departmental inquiry continued ex- parte. Subsequently, on his objection that he had not been

provided adequate opportunity, ex-parte departmental inquiry

was re-called and the inquiry started de novo. After full

participation by the appellant thereafter in the

departmental inquiry, some of the charges were found fully

proved while some were held partially proved by the Inquiry

Officer. The Disciplinary Authority (Chief Judge), on

consideration of the report submitted by the Inquiry

Officer, agreed with the findings recorded in the inquiry

report and awarded to the appellant penalty of dismissal

from the service.

4. The dismissal order dated November 8, 2000, as noted

above, was challenged by the appellant before the High Court

of Madras by way of filing a Writ Petition but without any

success.

5. Mr. V. Kanagaraj, learned senior counsel for the

appellant raised two-fold contention before us. Firstly, he

Page 3 of 8

3

contended that the Chief Judge was an appellate authority

and, therefore, he could not have imposed the order of

punishment as that has resulted in depriving the appellant

of his valuable right of departmental appeal against the

order of punishment. In support of this contention, Mr.

Kangaraj placed reliance on the two decisions of this court;

(i) Surjit Ghose vs. Chairman & Managing Director, United

Commercial Bank and others1 and (ii) Electronics Corporation

of India vs. G. Muralidhar2 .

6. The second contention of Mr. Kangaraj is that the

findings of the Inquiry Officer are vitiated inasmuch as

the Inquiry Officer had taken into consideration the

evidence that was recorded in the ex-parte proceedings.

7. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, it

may be stated immediately that the said contention is mis- placed. The Inquiry Officer has not based his findings on

the evidence that was recorded ex-parte but has referred to

that only for the purposes of appreciation of the evidence

of the witnesses examined by the department in de novo

inquiry wherein the appellant fully participated. The

findings are based on the evidence that was recorded

subsequently in the presence of the appellant. It is true

that the witnesses PW2 to PW11 examined by the department

1(1995)2 SCC 474

2.(2001)10 SCC 43