Holding

A higher authority, including the appointing authority, may impose major disciplinary penalties provided the employee is not deprived of a statutory right of appeal; here the appellant was not prejudiced, so the Director’s order of compulsory retirement was lawful.

Summary

Sub‑Post Master A. Sudhakar was charged with misappropriating Rs 5,000 received for a Kisan Vikas Patra. A departmental enquiry found him guilty of the first charge and part of a third charge and the Director of Postal Services, who was also his appointing authority, imposed compulsory retirement. Sudhakar appealed to the Post Master General, whose dismissal of the appeal was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which held that the Director lacked jurisdiction and that procedural defects existed. The High Court set aside the CAT order. The Supreme Court held that a higher authority, including the appointing authority, may impose major penalties provided the employee is not deprived of a statutory right of appeal; Sudhakar had exercised his right of appeal, so the Director’s order was valid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a higher authority than the appointing authority can act as disciplinary authority under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Whether the Director of Postal Services, as appointing authority, had jurisdiction to impose compulsory retirement.
Whether procedural safeguards (right to assistance, document supply, identity of complainant) were violated in the departmental enquiry.
Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965s. Rule 11, s. Rule 14, s. Rule 14(11), s. Rule 14(15)
Constitution of Indias. Article 311(2)

Subjects

Article 311disciplinary actioncompulsory retirementdepartmental enquiryjurisdictionprocedural fairnessproportionalityCentral Civil Services Rulesappointment authorityright of appeal

Judgment

A.SUDHAKAR A
v.
POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD AND ANR

MARCH 24, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311-Complaint of
misappropriation of money temporarily by delinquent employee-
Departmental enquiry initiated against the employee-Enquiry Officer found C
the employee guilty of the offence-Director of Postal Services imposed a
punishment of compulsory retirement-Petition before Central Administrative
Tribunal by the employee contending that the Director had no jurisdiction
to impose punishment; and that the quantum ofpunishment is disproportionate
to the offence-Tribunal allowed the Petition of the employee-High Court
reversed the judgment of the Tribunal in Writ Petition preferred by D
respondents-Correctness of-Held, on law, a higher authority can act as a
disciplinary authority so long as the delinquent employee is not deprived of
a statutory right of appeal-On facts, the employee preferred an appeal
before Post Master General and hence the employee was not prejudiced-
Temporary defalcation of amount was sufficient for the disciplinary authority E
to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the employee-
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.

A departmental enquiry was initiated against appellant by
Superintendent of Post Offices on a complaint of misappropriation of
money .given by complainant for purchase of a Kisan Vikas Patra. Enquiry p
Officer found the appellant guilty of commission of the charges. Director
of Postal Services, who was both appointing and disciplinary authority,
considered the Enquiry Report and imposed a punishment of compulsory
retirement of the appellant from the services. The appeal preferred by the
appellant before respondent-Post Master General was dismissed. The
appellant filed an Original Application before Central Administrative Tribunal G
which was allowed. The High Court in Writ Petition preferred by the
respondents, reversed the judgment of the Tribunal.

In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the respondent
373 H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A refused to grant time prayed for appointing a government officer to assist
him in the case and thus was gravely prejudiced; that a document was not
supplied to him which was taken in evidence when the main witness was
examined during the course of the enquiry and this was contrary to Rules
14(11) and 14(15) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules 1965; that the identity of the complainant had not been
B conclusively determined since the documents contained certain anomalies as
regard the names of the signatory and thus the entire disciplinary proceedings
must be held to have been vitiated; and that the quantum of punishment was
disproportionate.

C The respondent contended that the Director of Postal Services was the
appointing authority and hence no illegality has been committed by his acting
as a disciplinary authority; that the appellant misappropriated money given
to by the complainant for obtaining a Kisan Vikas Patra; that a xerox copy of
the document was supplied to the appellant during the course of enquiry since
the appellant merely asked for inspection of the original document; that the
D appellant never made a complaint at that point of time that the document should
have been supplied along with the show-cause notice; and that the quantum of
punishment cannot be said to be excessive.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

E HELD: 1.1. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India puts an embargo
upon passing of an order of dismissa~ removal or reduction of rank in services
by an authority below the rank of the appointing authority. There does not
appear to be an embargo in terms of the provision that a higher authority
would not act as a disciplinary authority. The appellant has not been deprived
F of an opportunity of preferring an appeal against the order of the Director of
Postal Services. He admittedly preferred an appeal before the Post Master
General which was duly considered. 1t would be obligatory on the part of the
delinquent officer to show prejudice. A notification placed by the respondents
shows that the Director of Postal Services was the appointing/disciplinary
authority in respect of the officials who were promoted to the Lower Selection
G Grade Cadre prior to division of the Cadre. Hence the Director of Postal
Services was the appointing authority. The appellant has in no manner been
prejudiced thereby. !379-G-H; 380-A-B; 381-B-C)

1.2. An authority higher than the appointing authority would also be
H the designated authority for the purpose of Article 311 of the Constitution of
-
A. SUDHAKAR v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD 375
. India. Even the appellate authority can impose a punishment subject, of course, A
to the condition that by reason thereof the delinquent officer should not be
deprived of a right of appeal in view of the fact that the right of appeal is a
statutory right. However, if such right of appeal is not embellished, an
authority higher than the appointing authority may also act as a disciplinary
authority. 1382-B-C) .
B
Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial
Bank and Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 474; AIR (1995) SC 1053; Balbir Chand v.
Food Corporation ofIndia Ltd. and Ors., [1997) 3 SCC 371; A Sanjeevi Naidu
v. State of Madras and Anr., (1970) 1 SCC 443 and Hemalatha Gargya v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. and Anr., (200319 SCC 510, referred to. C
K.P. Varghese v. DPS, Calicut and Ors., (1992) 19 ATC, CAT
Earnakulum, referred to.

2. The appellant merely asked for a copy of the original document.
He had made no grievance that no copy of the said document has been D
supplied to him as a result whereof he was prejudiced. There could not
have been any confusion about the identity of the complainant as the same
was a matter of record in view of the fact that the complainant, who had
paid him money for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patra, the name of buyer
whereof was borne out from the records. Only because the Enquiry Officer E
in his report had made a mistake in spelling the name of the complainant,
the same by itself would not mean that the identity of the complainant
was in dispute. Even if the same was in dispute, it was open to the appellant
to cross-examine the witnesses in that behalf. It is not the case of the
appellant that such cross-examinatiun was effected. [384-A-C)
F
Khem Chandv. Union ofIndia, [1958) SCR 1081; State ofUttar Pradesh
v. Om Prakash Gupta, [1969) 3 SCC 775 and Ku/deep Singh v. Commissioner
of Police and Ors., (1999) 2 SCC I 0, referred to.

3. The contention of the appellant relating to quantum of punishment
cannot be accepted having regard to the fact that temporary defalcation G
of any amount itself was sufficient for the disciplinary authority to impose
the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the appellant. (385-B]

Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and
Ors., [2006] 1 SCC 430; State of UP. v. Shea Shanker Lal Srivastava and H
I
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 3 S.C.R.

A Ors., JT (2006) 3 SC 48; The Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Mis. Central
Coalfields Ltd. v. The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of Mis. Central
Coalfields Ltd., JT (2006) 2 SC I; Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. Venkatesh
Gururao Kurati, JT (2006) 2 SC 73; L.K. Verma v. HM r Ltd. and Anr., JT
(2006) 2 SC 99 and The Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Syed Hussain,
B JT (2006) 2 SC 332, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6573/2004.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 31.3.2003 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 22176/97.
c Dr. Kailashnath Pillai, K. Radha Rani, R. Santhana Krishnan, P. Vijaya
Kumar and D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellant.

T.S. Doabia, Manish Sharma, Jagjit Singh Chhabra and V.K. Verma for
the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. The Appellant was working as a Sub-Post Master
Marrimandal. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him by the
Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanamkonda wherefor a chargesheet was
E issued on 13.8.1992. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. He was found guilty
of commission of the first charge and a part of third charge but he was
exonerated in respect of the second charge.

Although the chargesheet was issued by the Superintendent of Post
F Offices although he was otherwise the disciplinary authority in respect of the
Appellant, but as he was appointed to the Lower Selection Grade by the
Director of Postal Services in the year 1983 prior to divisionalisation of
Lower Selection Grade Cadre which took place from July, 1989, upon
completion of the enquiry, the records were forwarded to the Director of
Postal Services being the appointing authority. As the Director of Postal
G Services was both appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of the
Appellant herein, he took into consideration the aforementioned report of the
Enquiry Officer and by an order dated 7.3.1994 imposed a punishment of
compulsory retirement of the Appellant from services. He preferred an appeal
thereagainst before the Post Master General which was dismissed by an order ·
H dated 8.4.1994. An Original Application thereafter was filed by the Appellant
A. SUDHAKAR v. POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD [S B. SINHA, J.] 377
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed. A
The contentions of the Appellant before the said Tribunal were:

(i) The Superintendent of Post Offices being the designated
disciplinary authority, the imposition of a major penalty by the
Director of Postal Services was illegal. B
(ii) The enquiry report was vitiated in law as the Enquiry Officer
acted in a post-haste manner in proceeding to hold the enquiry
without giving proper opportunities to the Appellant to appoint
an officer to assist him in the departmental enquiry as a result
whereof he was gravely prejudiced. C
(iii) An additional document, a copy whereof had not been annexed
with the chargesheet was taken into consideration while examining
a witness.

(iv) So far as third charge is concerned, only purported negligence D
on his part, having been proved, the quantum of punishment was
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct.

The Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 13 .8. I 997 allowed
the said original application holding:
E
(i) The disciplinary authority who passed the order of compulsory
retirement had no jurisdiction and the order passed was improper
without following the procedure.

(ii) Certain documents were supplied to the Appellant during the
time when one of the witnesses was being examined on behalf F
of the department, which was impermissible in law.

(iii) The documents on which reliance was placed contained certain
anomalies as regard the names of the signatory.

The Respondent herein aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith filed a G
writ petition which by reason of the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2003 has
been allowed.

Dr. Kailashnath Pillai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in
H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 3 S.C.R.

A setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the Tribunal. It was further
submitted that as the Appellant was entitled to have the assistance of the
government servant, although JO days' time had been initially granted therefor,
when the Appellant prayed for 15 days' further time, the same was refused
as a result whereof the Appellant was gravely prejudiced. A copy of the
B additional document which was not supplied to him was taken in evidence
when the main witness was being examined during the course of enquiry
which was contrary to Rules 14( 11) and 14( 15) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ('the Rules'). As the identity
of the lady on whose complaint the proceeding was initiated had not been
conclusively detennined in view the fact that the Sub-Divisional Inspector
C (SDI) (Posts) during a preliminary enquiry recorded a statement of a lady
whose name was written as Rajavva at the top of the sheet but while noting
the name of the person who had put her right hand thumb in.pression thereon,
it was attested as that of 'Lachavva', the entire disciplinary proceedings must
be held to have been vitiated.

D Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that as the Director of Postal
Services, was the appointing authority, no illegality has been committed by
his acting as a disciplinary authority. The learned counsel further submitted
that it has not been denied or disputed by the Appellant that the Appellant
E had taken a sum of Rs. 5000/- from a lady which had been handed over for
obtaining a Kisan Vikas Patra on 18.5.1992 but the same was deposited only
when the complaint was made to the Superintendent of Post Offices on
15.7.1992 which goes to show that· the Appellant defalcated the amount
temporarily.

F It was contended that the Appellant had been given an opportunity to
defend himself and during the <;ourse of enquiry, although a xerox copy of
the document in question had been.supplied to him, he had merely asked for
inspection of the original document and in view of the fact that the same was
not traceable, he was informed thereabout. He made no complaint that he
G should have been supplied a copy of the said document together with the
show-cause notice

The learned counsel would contend that having regard to the facts and
circumstances of this case, the quantum of punishment imposed upon the
Appellant cannot be said to be excessive.
H
/'. SUDHAKAR v. POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD [S.B. SINHA, J.j 3 79

The three Articles of charges levelled against the Appellant are as A
under:

"Article I: Sri A. Sudhakar while holding charge of office of the
Marrimustial So as SPM failed to issue K.V.Ps for an amount of Rs.
5000/- after accepting the amount of Rs. 5000/- for issue of 5 year
KVPs on 18.5.92 from one Smt. Laxavva, resident of Marrimustial B
·across Marrimustial P.O. counter and thus failed to follow the
provis·i.ons of Rule 8 read with Rule 7 of KVP rules 1988 and also
failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty as prescribed in Rule
3(l)(i) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article II: Sri A. Sudhakar while functioning as SPM, Cherial SO
c
during the period 1987 to 1991 obtained a huge loan of Rs. 20,000 from
Sri B. Veereshalingam, teacher and entered into protracted
correspondence about the loan and interest payment, etc., and thereby
failed to manage his private affairs reasonably to a standard level and
thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 17 of CCS (Conduct) D
Rules, 1964.

Article III: Sri A. Sudhakar whil_e functioning as SPM, Marrimustial
SO on 15. 7 .1992 failed to take into account an amount of Rs. 5000

- credited by him on 15.7.92 vide ACG-67 receipt No. 77 dated 15.7.92
and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty
as prescribed in Rule 3(l)(i) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
E

As noticed hereinbefore, whereas the first charge was held to have
been proved beyond doubt and third charge was only partially proved; the
second charge was held to be have not been proved.
F
The Tribunal, in arriving at a finding that the Superintendent of Post
Offices being the designated authority the order of punishment could not be
imposed upon the Appellant by the Director of Postal Services, relied upon
a decision of the Central -Administrative Tribunal in K.P. Varghese v. DPS,
Calicut and Ors., ( 1992) 19 ATC, CAT Ernakulam. However, in that case, by G
reason of the action on the part of the said higher authority as a disciplinar1
authority, the delinquent officer was deprived of the forum of appeal. Such
is not the position here. Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India
puts an ~mbargo upon passing of an order of dismissal, removal or reduction
of rank in services by an authority below the rank of the appointing authority.
H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A There does not appear to be an embargo in terms of the said provision that
a higher authority would not act" as a disciplinary authority. In the instant
case, the Appellant has not been deprived of an opportunity of preferring an
appeal against the order of the Director of Postal Services. He admittedly
preferred an appeal before the Post Master General which was duly considered.
B In a matter of this nature, it would be obligatory on the part of the delinquent
officer to show prejudice. [See Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman & Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 474: AIR (1995)
SC 1053 and Balbir Chand v, Food Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.,
[1997]3 sec 371.

C The Department of Posts, when a query was raised as to the effect of
the changes in the rules in the year 1989 by a letter dated 5.07.1990, clarified
the matter stating:

"I am directed to say that consequent upon divisionalisation of LSG
cadres on the Postal and RMS side, heads of division have been
D vested with the powers to impose all penalties as given in Rule 11 of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Prior to that, the power to impose major
penalties were vested only with the DPS whereas heads of the divisions
wt:re competent to impose minor penalties as indicated at SI. No. (i)
to (iv) of Rule 11 ibid.

E However, references have been received from some of the
officers seeking clarifications about the competency of the officers
for imposition of major penalties against the LSG officials who were
appointed prior to divisionalisation of LSG cadre and after that. In
this regard, it is clarified that the LSG staff appointed by the DPS
prior to divisionalisation of the cadre can be proceeded against under
F
Rule 14 only by the DPS and LSG staff appointed by the divisional
Superintendent after the divisionalisation of the cadre can be proceeded
against by the Heads of the Divisions. In other words, the revised
schedule of appointing/ disciplinary/ appellate authorities as circulated
vide this office letter No. 12/8/87-Vig. lII dated September, 1989 still
G holds good but those officials who were appointed by an authority
higher than that indicated in the above referred schedule, their cases
for imposition of major penalty will have to be referred to the authorities ·
who actually appointed them."

Before us, the Respondents have categorically stated in the counter
H
-- A. SUDHAKAR v. POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD [S.B. SINHA, J.] 38 J
affidavit that prior to 1989 the Director of Postal Services was the appointing
authority. As the Appellant was appointed in the year 1983, he was appointed
A

by the Director of Postal Services. It has not been denied or disputed that
he was appointed by the Director of Postal Services, but a. contention has
merely been raised to the effect that as he was promoted when the Lower
Selection Cadre was divisionalised, the Superintendent of Post Offices must B
be held to be the designated authority. The Respondents have placed before
us a notification dated 7. 7 .1989 to show that the Director of Postal Services
was the appointing/disciplinary authority in respect of the officials who were
promoted to the Lower Selection Grade Cadre prior to divisionalisation of
.Lower Selection Grade Cadre. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding
that the Director of Postal Services was the appointing authority. In any C
event, as the Appellant has in no manner been prejudiced thereby, the
impugned judgment cannot be faulted on that count.

Dr. Pillai has, however, relied upon Black's Law Dictionary, page 447 to
show what the tenns 'Designate' and 'Designatio unius est exclusion alterius, D
et expressum facit cessare tacitum' would mean which are given in the
following terms:

"Designate. To indicate, select, appoint, nominate, or set apart for a
purpose or duty, as to designate an officer for a command. To mark
out and make known; to point out; to name; indicate. New Haven E
Federation a/Teachers v. New Haven Bd Of Ed., 27 Conn. Sup. 298,
237 A.2d 373, 380.

;---
Designatio unius est exclusion alterius, et expressum facit cessare
tacitum. The specifying of one is the exclusion of another, and that F
which is expressed makes that which is UQderstood to cease. (The
appointment or designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and
that which is expressed prevails over that which is implied.)"

He furthennore relied upon the decisions of this Court in A. Sanjeevi
Naidu, Etc. v. State of Madras and Anr., [1970] 1 SCC 443 and Hemalatha G
Gargya v. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. and Anr., [2003] 9 SCC 510.

We, i,n this case, are not concerned, as regard the concept of the
designated authority. If an authority has been designated by a statute enjoining .
him to perfonn statutory duties indisputably it is he who has to do the same
but in a case of this nature· where clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A of India envisages that a delinquent officer should not be imposed with major
penalties save and except an order passed by the appointing authority, the
latter becomes the designated authority.

It is now trite that an authority higher than the appointing authority
would also be the designated authority for the purpose of Article 311 of the
B Constitution of India. Even the appellate authority can impose a punishment
subject, of course, to the condition that by reason thereof the delinquent
officer should not be deprived of a right of appeal in view of the fact that the
right of appeal is a statutory right. However, if such right of appeal is not
embellished, an authority higher than the appointing authority may also act
C as a disciplinary authority.

Sanjeevi Naidu (supra) was a case under Section 68(C) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939. In that case.the.State Government was a designated authority and
in that view of the matter it was held that the statutory functions could not
D be delegated to any other authority.

In Henwlatha Gargya (supra), this Court was concerned with a case
under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. A designated authority
was created under 'i statute. The question which has been raised herein did
not arise for consideration therein.
E
Before the High Court, it appears, the records of the disciplinary
authorities had been produced upon perusing the same. The High Court perused
the same. It came to the conclusion:

"The other ground urged before us and the Tribunal is that the lady
F who had given the complaint had given a different name than the
name she gave when she was examined before the Enquiry Officer.
It is admitted that the lady, who gave the complaint was an illiterate
woman, had not the complaint written by someone-else and it is not
known under what circumstances a different name was shown at her
G thumb impression in the complaint than the name she gave when she
was being examined before the Enquiry Officer. This was known to
the delinquent official. Had he got any doubts about the identity of
the witness, he could have cross-examined her. In any case, the lady
who had appeared before the Enquiry-Officer categorically stated that
on I 8.5.1992 she had given a sum of Rs. 5,0001- to respondent No. I/
H
A. SUDHAKAR v. POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD [S.B. SINHA, J.] 383
delinquent for issuing Kisan Vikas Patras but the delinquent had A
failed to give the said certificate or even return back the money she
had given to him even after two months from the date of receipt of
money from her. In any case, we are not going to interfere with the
finding of the Tribunal on question of such fact. The allegation that
sufficient time was not given to peruse certain documents is not borne B
by record. The documents were given well in advance and as a matter
of fact the respondent had not expressed any grievance before the
Enquiry Officer that he had not sufficient time to peruse the documents
on which the department had relied."

It is not disputed that a complaint petition was filed by a lady. SDI C
(Posts) visited the village for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. It has
furthermore not been disputed that the Appellant had deposited the amount
on 15.7.1992, i.e., after the complaint was lodged. The complainant was
examined by the Enquiry Officer. She was also cross-examined by the
Appellant.
D
From the proceeding sheet in the departmental enquiry dated 11.11.92,
it appears that the Appellant was asked to furnish the list of additional
documents and witnesses to be examined by way of defence, if any. He had
prayed for 15 days' time. He was directed to submit the same within 10 days.
He, however, again prayed for 15 days' time for nominating his AGS. It E
appears that I 0 days' time had already been given to him on 20th October,
1992 and he had furthermore been granted I 0 days' further time. From the
proceeding sheet dated 20.03.1993, it appears that the officer who was assisting
in the disciplinary enquiry was present. The said proceeding sheet reads,
thus:
F
"During the last sitting the additional documents of SI. 3 and SI. 4 i.e.
original promissory notes and letters dated 13.02.90, 27.01.92,
30.01.92, 18.02.92 and 19.02.92 were asked to be produced to the
P.O. The SP is expressed his inability to produce the original vide his
letter No. F7-l/92-93 dated 09.02.93 that they are not available. Since
the charge sheet was issued and cited documents shown in the annexure G
III of charge sheet, are Xerox copies the inquiry will be held with the
Xerox copies only Re. G.S. requests with the LO. that the (illegible)
I is the day finding inquiry, as such are dire needed for the impose
of words the fair inquiry and on the other side providing the reasonable
opportunity the G.S. to defend himself in a proper way in the said H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 3 S.C.R.

A enquiry."

It is, therefore, evident that the Appellant merely asked for a copy of
--
the original document. He had made no grievance that no copy of the said
document has been supplied to him as a result whereof he was prejudiced.
There could not have been any confusion about the identity of the lady as the
B same was a matter of record in view of the fact that a lady who had paid him
a sum of Rs. 5000 for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patra, the name of buyer
whereof was borne out from the records. Only because the SDI (Posts) in his
report had made a mistake in spelling the name of the complainant, the same
by itself would not mean that the identity of the complainant was in dispute.
C Even if the same was in dispute it was open to the Appellant to cross-
examine the witnesses in that behalf. It is not the case of the Appellant that
such cross-examination was effected.

In terms of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, the procedural
requirements which were required to be followed were as under:
D
(i) opportunity to the concerned officer to deny his guilt and establish
his innocence which means he must be told that what the charges
against him are and the allegations on which such charges are
based;

E (ii) he must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses produced against him and examine himself or other
witnesses on his behalf; and

(iii) he must be given opportunity to show cause that the proposed
punishment would not be proper punishment to inflict which
F means that the tentative determination of the competent authority
to inflict one of the three punishments must be communicated to
him.

It is well-settled that those principles of natural justice are not embodied
principles. Th.: requirements contained in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution
G of India in view of the decision of this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of
India, [1958] SCR 1081 are held to be as a part of the principle of natural
justice. The courts in the aforementioned situation are required to see as to
whether non-observance of any of the said principles in a given case has
resulted in denial of justice. If there had been substantial compliance of the
H procedure, the court may not interfere. [See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om
A. SUDHAKAR v. POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD [S.B. SINHA, J.] 385
Prakash Gupta, [1969] 3 SCC 775 and Ku/deep Singh v. Commissioner of A
Police and Ors., [1999] 2 SCC 10]

Contention of Dr. Pillai relating to quantum of punishment cannot be
' accepted, having regard to the fact that temporary defalcation of any amount
itself was sufficient for the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment

- of compulsory retirement upon the Appellant and in that view of the matter,
the question that the third charge had been partially proved takes a back seat.

In Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Karnataka
B

and Ors., [2006] I SCC 430, this Bench opined:

"The Tribunal's jurisdiction is akin to one under Section I IA of the c
Industrial Disputes Act. While. exercising ouch discretionary
jurisdiction, no doubt it is open to the Tribunal to substitute one
punishment by another; but it is also trite that the Tribunal exercises
a limited jurisdiction in this behalf. The jurisdiction to interfere with
the quantum of punishment could be exercised only when, inter alia, D
it is found to be grossly disproportionate.

This Court repeatedly has laid down the law that such interference
at the hands of the Tribunal should be inter alia on arriving at a
finding that no reasonable person could inflict such punishment The
Tribunal may furthermore exercises its jurisdiction when relevant E
facts are not taken into consideration by the Management which would
have direct bearing on the question of quantum of puni~hment.

Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross
indiscipline. The Respondent is a teacher. Even under grave
provocation a tea.cher is not expected to abuse the head of the F
institution in a filthy language and assault him with a chappal.
Punishment of dismissal from services, therefore, cannot be said to
be wholly disproportionate so as shock one's conscience.

A person, when dismissed from services, is put to a great hardship G
but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go
unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable
in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such
a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of
discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the
aforementioned principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a few H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A recent decisions of this Court."

[See also State of U.P. v. Shea Shanker Lal Srivastava & Ors., JT (2006)
3 SC 48, The Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of !vUs. Central Coalfields Ltd.
v. The Managemenr of Bhurkunda Colliery of Mis. Central Coalfields Ltd.,
JT (2006) 2 SC 1, Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, JT
B (2006) 2 SC 73, L.K. Verma v. H.M. T Ltd & Anr., JT (2006) 2 SC 99 and The
Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Syed Hussain, JT (2006) 2 SC 332)

For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which
-
is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
C case, there shall be no order as to cos ts.

B.S. Appeal dismissed.