Holding

The High Court was not justified in staying the disciplinary proceedings; interim relief cannot be granted on a prima facie finding before the disciplinary authority decides the factual issues.

Summary

Air India Ltd. appointed M. Yogeshwarraj to a post reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes based on a caste certificate. The company later alleged that a later‑dated caste certificate was forged and issued a show‑cause notice; an inquiry committee found him not guilty, but the Disciplinary Authority issued a second notice without reaching a final conclusion on guilt. The Bombay High Court stayed the disciplinary proceedings, prima facie holding that the employee belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Tribe. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in granting such interim relief because the Disciplinary Authority had not yet made a final factual finding and its jurisdiction was not in doubt. Consequently, the stay was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Can a High Court stay disciplinary proceedings on a prima facie finding before the disciplinary authority has made a final factual determination?
Whether the High Court may pre‑empt the factual decision of the disciplinary authority regarding the employee's caste and alleged misconduct.
Whether the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to issue a show‑cause notice can be challenged at the interim stage.

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsshow cause noticebogus caste certificateinterim reliefstay of proceedingsreserved postSC/ST reservationservice lawjurisdiction

Judgment

AIR INDIA LTD. A
v.
M. YOGESHWARRAJ

MAY2, 2000

[D.P. WADHWAAND RUMA PAL, JJ.] B
-).
Service Law :

'Disciplinary proceedings-Interference with-Employee-Bogus Caste
Certificate produced for seeking Employment-Show Cause notice-Discipli-
nary Authority not finally deciding the charges and not making up its mind
c
regarding delinquent employee's guilt-High Court passing an interim order
staying the disciplinary proceedings by prima facie holding that the employee
- -l belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe-Validity of-Held, High Court
neitherjustified in pre-empting a factual decision ofthe Disciplinary Authority
on the issue, nor justified in staying the disciplinary proceedings-Thus, the D
order of High Court is set aside. /

Respondent, appointed against a reserved post, was issued with a
show cause notice for producing bogus Caste Certificate. Inquiry Commit-
tee found him not guilty of the charges framed. However, Disciplinary
Authority not agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Committee, issued E
a second show cause notice holding that the charges levelled against the
delinquent employee in the first show cause notice were established. But
the Disciplinary Authority instead of coming into any final conclusion on
the issue, asked' the respondent to submit his reply. On challenge, High
Court passed an order staying the disciplinary proceedings by prima facie F
holding that the respondent belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe.
Hence the present appeal.

- Allowing the appeal, the Court

Held : 1.1. High Court was not justified in granting interim relief by
staying the disciplinary proceedings. [909-A-B]
G

1.2. The show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority
clearly shows that it had not finally decided the issue involved in the case
and had not made up its mind as to the guilt of the respondent. Further, it H
905
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A appears from the writ petition that the respondent has not questioned the
jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to issue the impugned show
cause notice. Thus, High Court should not have pre-empted a factual
decision of the Disciplinary Authority on the issues. Nor should the High
Court have stayed the proceedings on a prima facie finding on the subject
matter of the enquiry when the competence of the Disciplinary Authority .
B
was not in doubt. (908-G-H; 909-B-D]

Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1964] 3
SCR 616 and State of Haryana v. Om Prakash, Constable, [1990] Supp. SCC
282, distinguished.
c 2. In the instant case, there was no delay in initiating the disciplinary
proceedings and the respondent participated in the inquiry without any
protest. (910-B-C] ).. -

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Another, (1990) Supp. SCC
D 738, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3113 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.99 of the Bombay High Court
in C.W.P. No. 2293 of 1999.
E
Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, Ms. Arpita Shanna, Ms. Tamta
Bery, Sanjay Choudhary, Ms. Nina Gupta and Vmeet Kumar for the Appel-
lant.

P.P. Rao, M.Y. Raj, Ashok D. Shetty, Ravishankar and R.D. Upadhyay
F for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.

G The appeal has been preferred from the order of the High Court of
Bombay dated 18th September, 1999 by which the High Court issued a rule
.and granted interim relief on the writ application filed by the respondent.

The subject matter of challenge in the writ applicati<?n was a show
cause notice dated 30th August, 1999 issued by the appellant to the writ
H petitioner. The impugned show cause notice followed an earlier show cause

'
AIR INDIA LTD. v. M.Y. RAJ [RUMA PAL, J .] 907
notice (referred to as the "first notice") issued to the respondent by the A
appellant on 29.12.1998. It was alleged in the first notice that the respondent
had been given appointment by the appellant in 1976 on the basis of his claim
that he belonged to a Schedule Tribe against a post reserved for Schedule
Caste/Schedule Tribe. A caste certificate had been submitted by the respond-
ent at the time of his appointment which had been issued by the Tutor,
B
Department of Pathology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Osmania Medical
College, Hyderabad and attested by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk
without the signature of the concerned Tahsildar. As the caste certificate was
not in the prescribed form from the competent authority, the respondent had
been called upon by the appellant to submit a proper certificate. Pursuant to
this, a caste certificate dated 4th February, 1998 had been submitted by the c
respondent. It was alleged in the first notice that the caste certificate so
produced was a forged document. It was further stated in the first notice that
the appellant was prima f acie of the view that it could not repose " any more
confidence in any manner" on the respondent and that the appellant was
prima f acie of the view, having regard to nature of duty discharged by the
D
appellant, that the respondent was not a person who could be retained in
service. The respondent was charged with breach of clause 19 (2) (viii) of
the Certified Standing Orders. The respondent was accordingly called upon
to submit an explanation in writing within three days from the date of
communication of the first notice failing which further disciplinary action
would be initiated against him in accordance with the Certified Standing E
Orders.

By letters dated 2nd January, 1999 and 25th January, 1999, the respond-
ent asked for extension of time to submit his written submissions. It was
granted by the appellant. On 1st February, 1999 the appellant asked the F
respondent to submit his explanation within three days from the communi-
cation of that letter. No explanation was submitted by the respondent.

The Inquiry Proceedings were commenced on 12th February, 1999 to
inquire into the charges framed against the respondent under the first notice.
Witnesses were examined and an inquiry report was submitted on 29.4.1999. G
The Inquiry Committee came to the conclusion that the caste certificate dated
4th February, 1998 had turned out to be a bogus certificate. It was however
noted that the original caste certificate submitted by the respondent in 1976
had been affirmed by a certificate issued from the office of the Collector,
Hyderabad on 11.3.1999. The Inquiry Committee was of the. view: H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A "Merely securing a wrong or false certificate, by itself does
not amount to a misconduct. The certificate may be false due to
ignorance or incompetence and therefore a wrong or false certificate
does not necessarily create delinquency on part of the person who
produces it."

B Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee found the respondent not guilty of
the charges framed.

It was in this background that the show cause notice impugned by the
respondent before the High Court was issued by the Disciplinary Authority.
C In substance, the notice stated that the caste certificate dated 4.2.1998 had
been found to be forged. As far as the caste certificate dated 11.3.1999 was
concerned it was stated that the address mentioned in the Collector's certifi-
cate had not been mentioned as the respondent's place of residence in any
of his records with the appellant. It was also stated that the Collector's letter
did not refer to the caste certificate dated 4.2.1998 and that if the 1976
D certificate was genuine, it was to be explained why the bogus caste certificate
dated 4.2.1998 was produced. According to the notice, the Inquiry Committee
had not dealt with these details in its report. The Disciplinary Authority
concluded by saying:

E "In view of the above prima f acie I am of the view that acts of
misconduct levelled against you vide chargesheet referred to above
has been established and tend to hold you guilty of the acts of
__misconduct and however before coming to such conclusions, I hereby
give you an opportunity to submitting your say as to why you should
not be held guilty of the above charges within 3 days of conu.nuni-
F cating of this letter to you. In case you fail to submit any satisfactory
explanation within the stipulated period of time, I propose to award
you the punishment of dismissal from the services of the Company
without retirement benefits in full as per Clause No. 20 ( i ) of the
Certified Standing Orders applicable to you."
G
Clearly, the Disciplinary Authority was yet to make up his mind as to 't
the guilt of the respondent.

According to the appellants, the challenge to the proceedings was
premature and the High Court should not have entertained the writ application
H as disputed questions of fact were involved. However, we do not wi~h to deal
AIR INDIA LTD. v. M.Y. RAJ [RUMA PAL, J .] 909
with this aspect of the matter as the High Court by the order under appeal A
has issued a Rule Nisi and it will be open to the appellants to raise this and
other contentions in their answer to the Rule. We are not aware as to the
reason why the High Court was persuaded to issue a Rule Nisi, but in its
further observations, "Primafacie, we are satisfied that the petitioner belongs
to the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe" and also grant of an interim order
B
staying the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority were erroneous.

It appears from a copy of the writ petition that the respondent has not
questioned the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to issue the im-
pugned Show Cause Notice. The two issues of the respondent's caste and
whether he had adequately explained the production of the bogus certificate c
of 4.10.98 are yet to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority. Both the issues
are primarily issues of fact. The High Court should not have preempted a
factual decision of the disciplinary authority on the issues. Nor should the
High Court have stayed the proceedings on a prima facie finding on the
subject matter of enquiry particularly when the competence of the Discipli-
nary Authority was not in doubt. D

The respondent's reliance on the decision of Sur Enamel and Stamping
Works (P) l.Jd. v. Their Workmen, [1964] 3 SCR 616 and State of Haryana
v. Om Prakash, Constable, [1990] Supp SCC 282 is misplaced. In both cases,
orders of dismissal had already been passed. Furthermore, the orders of
E
dismissal had been passed on proceedings which were not the subject matter
of the charge and of which the employee had not been put on notice. In the
case before us, apart from the fact that no final order has been passed by the
Disciplinary Authority, the substance of the impugned notice in no way
differs from that of the first notice.
F
The third decision noted by the respondent viz. State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Another [1990] Supp SCC 738 is also inappropriate.
The decision related to disciplinary proceedings initiated in respect of inci-
dents which had taken place 12 years earlier. It was said:

"...... the irregularities which were the subject matter of the G
enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is
not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said
irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According
to them even in April 1977, there was doubt about the involvement
of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.

A going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they
would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings as stated by the Tribwial. There is no satisfactory
explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and
we are also of the view that it will be wtfair to permit the departmental
enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage."
B
Here the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent
because of the production of a bogus certificate dated 4.10.1998. The
~--
disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 29.12.98. There was no delay.
Besides the respondent participated in the enquiry without protest.
c We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 18th
September, 1999-in so far as it stayed the operation of the show cause notice
dated 30th August, 1999 as well as the finding relating to the caste of the
respondent. There will be no order as to costs.

S.V.K. Appeal allowed.