Holding

The dismissal was justified as the employee was duly served with notices and given ample opportunity to be heard, satisfying the principles of natural justice.

Summary

G. Annadurai, a constable of the CRPF, was arrested in a theft case and released on bail on 14 August 1997 but failed to report for duty thereafter. He was declared a deserter on 19 December 1997 and a departmental enquiry under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 was instituted. Despite multiple notices, the charge memo, witness statements and the enquiry report being sent to his home address by registered post (and a notice published in a newspaper), Annadurai neither appeared nor filed any response, leading the disciplinary authority to dismiss him on 27 May 1998. The High Court’s Division Bench set aside the dismissal, holding that there was insufficient proof of service of the notices. The Supreme Court held that the service by registered post and newspaper publication satisfied the requirements of natural justice, that ample opportunity was given, and that the dismissal was therefore justified. The Court also ruled that the precedent of Union of India v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar was inapplicable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the dismissal order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the departmental dismissal of a CRPF constable was valid despite alleged deficiencies in service of notices and alleged violation of natural‑justice principles.

Legislation cited

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949s. 11(1)

Subjects

service lawdismissaldepartmental enquirynatural justiceCRPFCentral Reserve Police Force Actprocedural fairnessregistered post servicedesertionconstitutional jurisdiction

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 97

~ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
G. ANNADURAI
Civil Appeal Nos. 28-29 of 2009

APRIL 27, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
• GANGULY, JJ.]

Service Law - Dismissal - CRPF Constable - After
getting bail in a criminal case not joining duty for a long time
- In a court of enquiry, by the CRPF authorities, declared a c
deserter - Initiation of departmental enquiry - Non-
participation of the delinquent in the proceedings - Despite
service on him by registered post of Memo of Charges, two
notices, ex-parte statement of witnesses, inquiry report and
" service by newspaper publication - Dismissal from service D
- Writ petition allowed by Single Judge of High Court - In
writ appeal Division Bench of High Court setting aside
iudgment of single Judge holding that there was not sufficient
material to show the service of statements/notices - On
appeal, held: Dismissal order justified - The delinquent did E
not participate in the proceedings despite getting ample
opportunity __:_ Principle of natural justice - Central Reserve
Police Force Act, 1949 - s.11(1).
Union of India and Ors. vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar
and Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 569 - held inapplicable F

Case Law Reference
(1998) 1 sec 569 held inapplicable Para 5

" CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. G
"' 28-29 of 2009
~

From the Judgement and Order dated 09.11.2006 of the
High Court of Gauhati Assam in W.A. No. 467 of 2003

97 H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A P.S. Patwalia, Aishwarya Bhati, Sweta Rani, Sushma Suri, ~

with him for the Appellant(s).

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
B 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a .
.;
Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court allowing the writ
appeal filed by the respondent questioning correctness of the
c order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court. A writ
petition was filed assailing the order dated 27.5.1998 passed
by the appellants herein directing his dismissal. At the relevant
point of time, the respondent was serving as a constable in the
CRPF and was posted in Golaghat in the State of Assam. On
26.7.1997 First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged
D
before the Officer in charge of Golaghat Police Station alleging "'
commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). P.S. Case No.
257 of 1997 was registered. The respondent was arrested in
connection with the case and was released on bail on 14.8.1997.
E An enquiry was conducted by CRPF Authorities. The
Superintendent of Police by communication dated 27.8.1997
informed the concerned authorities of CRPF that appellant had
been released on bail on 14.8.1997. As the respondent did not
join duty even after lapse of sufficient time, after lapse of sufficient
F time after his release on bail, a court of enquiry was held and
the respondent was declared as the deserter with effect from
14.8.1997 by order dated 19.12.1997. Thereafter a depart-
mental enquiry was conducted under Section 11 (1) of the Central
Reserve Police Fore Act, 1949 (in short the 'Act') read with Rule
G 27 of the Rules framed thereunder. A memo of charges dated ...
23.12.1997 was drawn up, the charge memo was sent to the
respondent by registered post at his home address. The
..
respondent did not respond to the charges leveled and the
charge memo was sent back undelivered. An enquiry officer
H was appointed and after issuance of notice to the respondent
- UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. V. G. ·ANNADURAI 99
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.
-~ to appear before him on 26.1.1998 along with his written A
statement, reminder was sent to him on 10.2.1998. As the
respondent did not respond to the notices issued, an order was
passed ex parte. Thereafter in course of the enquiry statement
of four witnesses was recorded and several documents were
proved. Copies of the statements of the witnesses examined B
and documents exhibited were sent to the respondent by
registered post asking him to submit his written statement for
defence or appear before the enquiry officer. This was done on
6.3.1998. Again there was no compliance of the order. Enquiry
was concluded and it was held that the charges were proved. c
The report of enquiry was communicated to the disciplinary
authority to be forwarded. A copy of the same was sent to the
present respondent at his home address. As no response was
received within the time stipulated, the disciplinary authority
concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed
D
punishment of dismissal from service. Stand taken in the writ
petition was that the writ petitioner was not aware of the
disciplinary proceedings initiated. Stand was refuted by the
respondents in the writ petition. A learned Single Judge of the
____,.
High Court on considering the report of the enquiry officer and
the order of the disciplinary authority came to hold that the writ E
petition was without merit. It was held that after an elaborate
decision apart from the court of enquiry where the respondent
-~ was declared as deserter, in the disciplinary proceeding the
decision was taken in respect of a distinct charge. That being
so it was held that there was no merit in the writ petition. F
Accordingly it was dismissed. The order was assailed in the
writ appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.
3. The High Court found that there was not sufficient
material to show that the statement/notices were served. It was
G
<!' noted that the postal endorsements were to the effect 'not found'
f
and therefore the safeguards provided have not been observed.
Accordingly the writ appeal was allowed and the order of the
District Court was upheld.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows; H
-
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

.
A (i) Firstly it is apparent from the facts of this case that />-

the respondent who was an employee of the CRPF,
a disciplined force, has continued to be remained
absent from 14.8.97. When he did not report to his
Unit a warrant of arrest was issued on 30.8.97 which
B was addressed both to his home address in
Tamilnadu and to his place of posting at Golaghat,
Assam, but remained unexecuted. The respondent
was declared a deserter on 19.12,97. He never
reported for duty since then, thus in these
circumstances the respondent did not deserve any
c
relief in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction by the
High Court under Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India,

(ii) The facts further show that the following efforts were
D made to serve him during the course of the
departmental proceedings

(a) The Memorandum of charges was sent to him by Regd.
Post at his home address in Tamilnadu.

E (b) On initiation of inquiry two notices dated 26.1.98 and
10.2.98 were again sent to him by Regd. Post at his home
address in Tamilnadu.

(c) On conclusion of the inquiry ex-parte statements of
witnesses recorded were again sent to him by Regd. Post
F on his home address on 3.3.98 and 6.3.98.However, he
neither filed any reply nor appeared before the Inquiry
Officer.

-
(d) The inquiry report was also sent to him at his home
address. The Division Bench found that the same was
G
served upon him which is clear from the following
observations; .
"As the records reveal by communication dated
25.03.1998, issued by the Commandant of the concerned
H Battalion, a copy of the inquiry officer's report had been
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V G. ANNADURAI 101
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

forwarded to the appellant al his home address in A
Tamilnadu. The records disclose that the same was served
on him there. The order of dismissal was passed thereafter
on 27.05.1998. lnspite of this he failed to file any reply/
representation in response to the same.
(e) It maybe mentioned that even before this court 8
respondent did not put in his appearance.
/.
5. It is pointed out that decision in Union of India & Ors. v.
Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & Ors. [1998 (7) SCC 569] on
which High Court has placed reliance has no application to the c
facts of the present case.

6. It is pointed out that on conclusion of enquiry show cause
notice was served by a publication in the newspaper and all
possible efforts have been taken. Ample opportunity have been
granted to the respondent which he failed to avail. It is, therefore, D
submitted that the decision in Dinanath's case (supra) is not
applicable to the facts of the case.
7. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent
when the matter is called in spite of service of notice.
E
8. The factual scenario shows that ample opportunities .
have been given to the respondent in order to enable him to
effectively participate in the proceeding. He has failed to avail
those opportunities. That being so the Division bench of the
High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of learned F
Single Judge which according to us is irreversible.
9. The appeal is therefore allowed and the impugned
judgment is set aside.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
I·

•