Decided on February 15,2006

Jagat Pal Cheema Appellant


NIRMAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THE facts which are not in dispute are as under: That the petitioner was working as a Sectional Officer with the respondent. He was subjected to a departmental inquiry. After the completion of the inquiry, he was removed from service. He challenged the order of removal from service before the Appellate authority. The Appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, vide its order dated 22.11.1998. Petitioner challenged the dismissal order dated 22.11.1998, by way of filing SWP No. 1960 of 1998, on various grounds, including that the Punishing Authority before imposing the punishment did not furnish him a copy of the inquiry report. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by passing the following order;.... this petition as such is allowed. The punishing authority would re -decide the matter. The petitioner would be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and this hearing would be prospective in nature. As to what relief the petitioner is entitled to, would depend upon the decision which the concerned authority takes now. The relationship of master and servant shall stand revived for this limited purpose i.e for giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As indicated above, what benefit he is to get would depend upon the decision which the respondents may ultimately take. Let the hearing be given on 2nd May, 2001. On this date, the petitioner would appear before the punishing authority. The said authority would take the decision on this date or on any other date to which the hearing is adjourned. Effort be made to settle the issue before 31st May, 2001.
(2.) IN pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the matter was placed before the Cantonment Board and the Cantonment Board in its meeting held on 18 -05 -2001, afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner, the members present in the meeting by majority decision decided to re -instate the petitioner in service. However, the President of the Board and Major Anil Negi, GE, Ex -Officio Member voted against re -instating the petitioner in service by stating that earlier punishment imposed was correct. In the Board meeting, CEO advised the Board President that the matter be referred to GOC -in -C, Northern Command. Accordingly, the matter came to be referred to GOC -in -Chief. The GOC -in -C, Northern Command, on receipt of the matter, issued a show cause notice dated 06 -08 -01 to the Cantonment Board, Jammu, while exercising the powers vested under Section 52 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (hereinafter called the Act) in respect of a decision taken by the Board by their Cantonment Board Resolution (hereinafter called the CBR) dated 18th May, 2001. The Cantonment Board, filed a reply to the show cause notice. The GOC -in -C, vide impugned order set aside the order of CBR dated 18/05/01, re -instating the petitioner in service and approved the earlier penalty of dismissal. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir for quashing Order No. 6/33/B/Appeal/Cantt./JPS/DE/NC dated 22nd November, 2001 passed by General Officer Commanding in Chief, Northern Command, respondent -3.1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE primary question which falls for determination in this petition is whether the Board President can override the majority decision and GOC -in -Chief on reference can set aside the majority view.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.