Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2003 DIGILAW 677 (SC)

M. D. MAHARASHTRA COTTON GROWERS MARKET FEDERATION LTD. v. CHOUGHULE POPATRAO ANNASAHEB

2003-05-02

S.B.SINHA, V.N.KHARE

body2003
( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) HEARD counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 1 herein alleged to have committed certain misconduct, with the result that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The enquiry officer found the charges proved against the respondent. However, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor punishment. The enquiry officer directed for recovery of a sum of Rs 9000 from the respondent and stoppage of his promotion for a period of three years. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal against the order imposing minor punishment. It is alleged that the respondent gave an application for withdrawal of the appeal. However, the appellate Authority continued with the appeal and enhanced the punishment by passing an order of removal against the respondent. The respondent thereafter preferred a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was allowed in part. It is against the said judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us. ( 4 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that once the delinquent officer has withdrawn the appeal, there was no valid reason for the Appellate Authority to have proceeded with the appeal. Besides that there is no suo motu or any other power under Rule 53 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules with the Appellate authority to enhance the punishment. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. ( 5 ) IT was next submitted by Mr L. N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel that in any view of the matter the High Court fell in error in directing the appellant to pay the entire arrears of salary to the respondent. We find merit in the argument. The respondent was found partially guilty of charge and inasmuch as he took regular employment after he was removed from service. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the order directing for payment of entire arrears of salary and instead direct that the respondent be given half of the back salary. ( 6 ) WITH this modification, the appeal stands disposed of.