RAM KUMAR VS STATE OF HARAYAN

NAME

: R.S.TAMILSELVAN

ROLL NO

: B.A0130070

CLASS

: Sec. B, 4th Sem. B.A. LLB (Hons.)

SUBMITTED ON: 7/10/2015

DECLARATION
I do hereby declare that the project research entitled RAM KUMAR VS STATE OF
HARAYAN, submitted to the Tamil Nadu National Law School in fulfilment of the requirement
of the internal component is a record of the original work done by me under the supervision and
guidance of Mr.MAHINDRA PRABHU. and that the project submitted has not been formed on
the basis of any other project submitted by any other university or college.

R.S.TAMILSELVAN
BL.LLB(HONS) 3YEAR

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled RAM KUMAR VS STATE OF HARAYAN submitted
to the Tamil Nadu National Law School in fulfilment of the internal component done by
R.S.TAMILSELVAN under the supervision of. Mr.MAHINDRA PRABHU

Place: Tiruchirappalli
Date: 07/10/2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard
work and honesty. This research venture has been made possible due to the generous cooperation of various persons. To list them all is not practicable, even to repay them in words is
beyond the domain of my lexicon.
May I observe the protocol to show my deep gratitude to the venerated Faculty-in-charge
Mr.MAHINDRA PRABHU for his kind gesture in allotting me such a wonderful and elucidating
research topic. Apart from that I would like to thank my friends for their support and suggestions
during the process of making this project

TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION:
INTRODUCTIION
CASE FACT
MAIN ISSUE
JUDGMENT OF CASE
CONSLUSION

Introduction

In the instant case, it is a dispute relating to the termination of a bus conductor (the appellant)
who was terminated on the ground that ticket was not issued to nine passengers though fare was
collected from them. But the appellant contended that the termination was baseless and it
violated the principles of Natural Justice and was void and illegal and hence the termination was
set aside by the Court. The Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and set aside
the impugned order of termination as invalid as it was a non-speaking order not containing any
reason. In second appeal, the High Court affirmed the finding of the Additional District Judge as
to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but set aside his finding that the impugned order was a
non-speaking order and held that it was quite legal and valid.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court held that, when the punishing authority agrees with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer who accepts the reasons given by him in support of such
findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to
the same findings as that of the Enquiry Officer and give the same reasons for the-findings.
The present case is meant for determination under the ID Act, 1947.

Workman conundrum is always at dispute and under the present case is left to analysis and
interpretation which is discussed below.

Case fact
The service of the appellant, bus conductor was terminated consequent upon the enquiry
conducted into allegations of non-issue of tickets to nine passengers, though fare was collected
from each of them. A suit filed by the appellant, contending that the order of termination was
illegal and void and was opposed to the principles of natural justice, as no reason was given in
the order, was dismissed by the trial court. It was also held that the Civil Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
The Additional District Judge, on appeal, held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain
and try the suit and set aside the impugned order of termination as invalid as it was a nonspeaking order not containing any reason. In second appeal, the High Court affirmed the finding
of the Additional District Judge as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but set aside his finding
that the impugned order was a non-speaking order and held that it was quite legal and valid.
In

the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the punishing

authority had not applied his mind before passing the impugned order, which was apparent from
the fact that he had not given any reason in justification thereof and this had vitiated the
impugned order of termination.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court held that, When the punishing authority agrees with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer who accepts the reasons given by him in support of such
findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to
the same findings as that of the Enquiry Officer and give the same reasons for the-findings.
In

the instant case, it is difficult to say that the punishing authority had not applied his mind.

The punishing authority has placed reliance upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, which means
he has not only agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but also accepted the reasons
given by him for the same. When the punishing authority has accepted the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and the reasons given by him, the question of non-compliance with the
principles of natural justice does not arise.
It cannot be said that the impugned order is not a speaking order and is vitiated. In view of
the fact that it is the first offence of the appellant, who is said to be the father of five minor

children and has no other means of livelihood, the respondent may consider the reemployment
of the appellant to the post of Conductor or to any other post, to which he may be found to be
suitable.1

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1482791/

Main Issue
1. Whether there is a discharge of duties. There is a enquiry officer can punish ?
2. Whether there is a natural justice is there?
3. Whether there is a discharge of duties and there is a enquiry officer can punish?
According the chairman and managing director was rejected it was held they had not brought out
any new facts in his representation and that the respondent had show undue favour to the supplier
in the despatch of the rejected bags without ensuring defacement before issue of the defective
bags. The appellate authority held that by doping so the respondent had acted in a manner
prejudicial to the interest of national fertilizes limited and had shown wilful disobedience of the
instructions and negligently performance his own duties. The penalty of removal was
accordingly confirmed.
The respondent challenged the order of removal under Article 226 before high court of Punjab
and Haryana the divison bench was of the view that after supply of the enquiry officer report a
delinquent employee if he opts to submit his reply objections against the finding of the enquiry
officer it is imperative for the objections against the findings of the enquiry officer had not given
his own reason is support of his conclusion. It was also noted that enquiry officer had not given a
firm finding and in relation to change. According to the high court failure to give a reason of
dealings with the respondent objections to the enquiry officer reported amounted to violation of
principle of natural justice. This defect in the disciplinary authority order was also true of the
appellate authority order.
We are unable to agree with the reasoning with the conclusion reached by the high court. We
have quoted the conclusions of the enquiry officer. It could not be said that enquiry officer not
reached a firm conclusion with regards to both the changes as far as the respondent was
concerned it is true that the enquiry officer said that there was no procedure said down in writing
relating to the defacement of rejected bags. But he did not say that there were no instruction
given to the respondent to ensure the defacement of rejected bags. In fact the enquiry officer had
listed his conclusions and findings at the end of his report from which it is abundantly clear that
he was convinced that instructions had been issued to respondent to deface the bags before

despatching them to the supplier. The enquiry officer held that the respondent alone a was not
come to firm conclusion.
A part from misreading the enquiry officers report high court also misapplied the law the
various decisions referred to in the impugned judgment make it clearly that the disciplinary
authority is required to give reason only when disciplinary authority does not agree with finding
of the enquiry officer. In this case the disciplinary authority had concurred with the finding
enquiry officer wholly. Disciplinary authority after quoting the content of the charge sheet the
deposition of witness as recorded by the enquired officer the finding of the enquired officer and
explanation submitted by the employee passed an order which in all material. Respects is similar
to the passed by the disciplinary authority in this case learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent sought to draw a distinction on the basis that the disciplinary authority had in this
case Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana.
4. Whether there is a natural justice is there?

Judgment of the case

When the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer who accepts the
reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority
to again discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the Enquiry Officer and give
the same reasons for the-findings. In the instant case, it is difficult to say that the punishing
authority had not applied his mind. The punishing authority has placed reliance upon the report
of the Enquiry Officer, which means he has not only agreed with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer but also accepted the reasons given by him for the same. When the punishing authority
has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reasons given by him, the question of
non-compliance with the principles of natural justice does not arise. It cannot be said that the
impugned order is not a speaking order and is vitiated. In view of the fact that it is the first
offence of the appellant, who is said to be the father of five minor children and has no other
means of livelihood, the respondent may consider the re-employment of the appellant to the post
of Conductor or to any other post, to which he may be found to be suitable.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. In this appeal by special leave the
appellant, a Bus Conductor of the Haryana Roadways, has challenged the validity of the order of
termination of his service on the ground of failure of the punishing authority to give any reason
for the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice.
A charge was leveled against the appellant that he did not issue tickets to nine passengers,
although he had taken the fare from each of them. A disciplinary proceeding was started against
the appellant. The 1059 Enquiry Officer, after considering the allegations constituting the charge,
the plea of the appellant in defence and the evidence adduced by the parties including the
appellant, held that the charge against the appellant was proved. The punishing authority agreed
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by the impugned order terminated the service of the
appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a suit challenging the legality of the order of
termination. It was contended by the appellant that as no reason was given in the impugned
order, it was illegal and invalid being opposed to the principles of natural justice. The Trial Court
overruled the said contention and also held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain
and try the suit. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held in disagreement with the Trial Court and,
in our opinion, rightly that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The
learned Additional District Judge, however, held that the impugned order was a non-speaking
order not containing any reason and, as such, it was invalid. In that view of the matter, the
learned Additional Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the
impugned order of termination of service of the appellant and decreed the suit.
The State of Haryana took the matter to the High Court in a second appeal. The High Court
affirmed the finding of the learned Additional District Judge as to the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court, but set aside his finding that the impugned order was a non-speaking order. The High
Court took the view that the impugned order was quite legal and valid.
Based on the above findings. the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and
decree of the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this appeal is by special leave.
It has been urged by Mr. Tarkunde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that
the punishing authority has not applied his mind before passing the impugned order, which is
apparent from the fact that he had not given any reason in justification of the impugned order.
Counsel submits that non-application of the mind and failure to give any reason by the punishing
authority vitiated the impugned order of termination and, accordingly, it should be set aside.
It has been pointed out by the High Court that the punishing 1060 authority has passed a lengthy
order running into seven pages mentioning therein the contents of the charge-sheet, the detailed
deposition of the witnesses, as accorded by the Enquiry Officer, and the findings of the Enquiry
Officer.
The explanation submitted by the appellant has also been reproduced in the impugned order.
Thereafter, the punishing authority stated as follows: I have considered the charge-sheet, the
reply filed to the charge-sheet, the statements made during enquiry, the report of the Enquiry
Officer, the show cause notice, the reply filed by the delinquent and other papers and that no
reason is available to me on the basis of which reliance may not be placed on the report of the
Enquiry Officer. Therefore, keeping these circumstances in view, I termi nate his service with
effect from the date of issue of this order. In view of the contents of the impugned order, it is

difficult to say that the punishing authority had not applied his mind to the case before
terminating the services of the appellant. The punishing authority has placed reliance upon the
report of the Enquiry Officer which means that he has not only agreed with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, but also has accepted the reasons given by him for the findings. In our opinion,
when the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and accepts the
reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority
to again discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the Enquiry Officer and give
the same reasons for the findings. We are unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the
appellant that the impugned order of termination is vitiated as it is a non-speaking order and does
not contain any reason. When by the impugned order the punishing authority has accepted the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reason given by him, the question of non-compliance
with the principles of natural justice does not arise. It is also incorrect to say that the impugned
order is not a speaking order.
There is, therefore, no substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be
no order as to costs.
In view of the fact that it is the first offence of the appellant, who is said to be the father of five
minor children and has no other means of livelihood, the respondent may consider the reemployment of the appellant to the post of Conductor or to any other post, to which he may be
found to be suitable.

Conclusion:
In view of the contents of the impugned order of the it is difficult to say that the punishing
authority had not applied its mind to the case before terminating the services of the appellant.
The punishing authority has placed reliance upon the report of the enquiry officer which means
that he had not only agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer. In the our opinion when the
punishing authority agrees with the findings of the enquiry officer and accepts the reasons given
by him in support of such finding it is not necessary for the punishing authority agrees by him in
support such as enquiry. We are unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant
that the impugned order of termination is vitiated is a non speaking order and does not contain
any reason. When by the impugned order the punishing authority has accepted the finding of the
enquiry officer and the reason given by him the question of non compliance with the principle of
nature justice does not arise. It is also incorrect to say that the impugned order is not a speaking
order.