Holding

Implementation of an order does not render a writ petition challenging that order infructuous; the petition may proceed and the matter must be decided on its merits.

Summary

NARENDER SINGH, a customs vigilance officer, was dismissed for allegedly accepting illegal gratification to clear Afghan nationals through customs. After his appeal was rejected, the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. The Union of India challenged the Tribunal's order by filing a writ petition under Article 226, which the Delhi High Court dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the employee had already been reinstated. The Supreme Court held that compliance with an order does not render a writ petition challenging that order ineffective or unproductive. It clarified that the term 'infructuous' means ineffective, unproductive and unfruitful, and that the petition could still be heard on its merits. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the matter remitted to it for fresh disposal, with no opinion expressed on the merits and no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition becomes infructuous merely because the order it challenges has been implemented.
Interpretation of the term 'infructuous' in the context of judicial review.
Whether the Delhi High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition as infructuous.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

service lawdisciplinary dismissalillegal gratificationwrit petitioninfructuousreinstatementadministrative lawCentral Administrative TribunalArticle 226

Judgment

- -1 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
NARENDER SINGH

JULY 29, 2005

[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Dismissal of an employee on ground of illegal gratification-Appeal
dismissed by Appellate Authority-Reversed by Tribunal directing the c
authorities to reinstate the employee-Challenge to--Dismissed by High
Court as infructuous-On appeal, Held: Merely because the order of
reinstatement was implemented by the employer, that did not render petition
infructuous-Hence the matter is remitted to High Court for disposal afresh
on merits. D
Words and Phrases:

'Jnfructuous '-Meaning of

Respondent-employee was proceeded against departmentally on the
charge of accepting illegal gratification from two Afghan nationals for
E
clearing them through Customs without paying the Customs duty. He was
ultimately dismissed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred by
him was also rejected by the appellate authority. Challenging these orders,
the respondent-employee filed Original Application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal. The Order was quashed by the Tribunal directing F
the employer to reinstate the respondent-employee forthwith. The order was
questioned by the employer by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Petition was dismissed as infructuous by a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court G
HELD: 1.1. The order of the High Court is clearly indefensible. Merely
because the order of reinstatement had been implemented by the appellant,
that did not render the writ petition infructuous as has been observed by the

"· 899 H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A High Court. (901-F] .... -
Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar and Ors., (1973) 4 SCC 183, relied
on.

1.2. The expression 'infructuous' means ineffective, unproductive and
B unfruitful. By implementing an order, the challenge to the validity of the order
is neither wiped out nor rendered redundant. Hence, the matter is remitted to
the High Court for disposal afresh on merits. It is clarified that no opinion
has been expressed on the merits of the case. (902-B, CJ
...-'

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1813 of2003.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.2001 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No. 5869 of2001.

A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General,-S. Wasim A. Qadri, Amit Anand
Tiwari, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra with him for the Appellants.
D
Rajiv Dutta and Dr. Kailash Chand with him for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. The union of India and the Additional
E Commissioner of Police (OPS), New Delhi have questioned correctness of the
order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing writ
petition filed by the present appellants as infructuous.

The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and is as under:

F Respondent (herein referred to as the 'employee') was proceeded against
departmentally on the charge that on 27/28.2.1996 while posted in the vigilance
cell at the Indira Gandhi International Airport he accepted illegal gratification
for getting two Afghan nationals cleared through Customs without paying
the Customs duty payable. He was ultimately dismissed by the disciplinary
authority by order dated 7. 8.1997. The appeal preferred by him was also
G rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 20.11.1997. Challenging
these orders the respondent-employee filed Original Application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the
'Tribunal'). By order dated 21.11.2000, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the
order of dismissal dated 7 .8.1997 passed by the disciplinary authority as also
H the order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the appellate authority. The respondent- -'\
U.O.I. v. NARENDERSINGH [PASA YAT,J.] 901
employee was directed to be reinstated forthwith. The order passed by the A
Tribunal was questioned by the present appellant by filing writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). The
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by its order dated 5.12.200 I dismissed
the writ petition as infructuous by observing as follows:

"We are informed that respondent stands already reinstated in B
service pursuant to Tribunal order dated 21.11.2000 passed in OA.95/
98 rendering this petition as good as infructuous. But L/C for petitioners
still tried to justify the departmental action. We are not impressed as
petitioner had already implemented Tribunal order.

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous." C
Stand of the appellant in the present appeal is that the view taken by
the High Court is clearly untenable. Merely because the respondent-employee
had been reinstated in service pursuant to impugned orders that did not
render the petition infructuous.
D
In response, learned counsel for the respondent-employee submitted
that Tribunal's order is without blemish and even on merits there is no scope
for interference with the said order. Even otherwise as has been rightly held
by the High Court after the order of reinstatement the writ petition had really
become infructuous.
E
The High Court's order is clearly indefensible. A writ petition
questioning the Tribunal's order on merits does not become infructuous by
giving effect to the Tribunal's order. Merely because the order of reinstatement
had been implemented by the appellant, that did not render the writ petition
infructuous as has been observed by the High Court. This position was p
clearly stated in Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar and Ors., [I 973] 4 SCC
183. In para 23 of the decision it was observed as follows:

"Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the fact that
after the judgment of the High ~ourt the State Government has passed
an order on March 19, 1971, the effect of which is to equate the Sales G
Tax Officers of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax
Officers, Grade III, of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been
passed by the State Government only to comply with the directions
given by the High Court. It was made during a period when the appeal
against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the
H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the
High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union
of India has become infructuous."

The expression infructuous means ineffective, unproductive and
unfruitful. It is derived from the Latin word "fructus" (fruit). By implementing
B an order, the challenge to the validity of the order is not wiped out and is
not rendered redundant.

The inevitable result is that the appeal deserves to be allowed which
we direct. The order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted
to it for fresh disposal on merits. We make it clear that we have not expressed
C any opinion on the merits of the case.

Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeal allowed.