Issuing Limited Notice At Admission Stage Does Not Bar Constitutional Courts From Enlarging Scope Of Petition Or Appeal During Final Hearing: SC
|The Supreme Court set aside the Order of penalty imposed on a Senior Medical Officer eleven days before his retirement.
The Supreme Court held that issuing a limited notice at the stage of admission does not bar a Constitutional Court from enlarging the scope of a petition or appeal at the stage of final hearing if justice so demands.
The Court set aside the dismissal Order and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Senior Medical Officer (Appellant) eleven days before his retirement. The Court held that even though the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the penalty of a 2% permanent cut in pension imposed on the Appellant, it ought to have set things right by interfering with the findings and granting full relief to the Appellant.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held, “Even otherwise, issuing limited notice at the stage of admission does not bar a Constitutional Court having inherent powers to pass such orders as the justice of the case before it demands to enlarge the scope of a petition/appeal at the stage of final hearing. Any observation that the court may choose to make while entertaining the petition/appeal by issuing limited notice ought to be regarded as tentative. Such observation cannot limit the court’s jurisdiction to consider the controversy, as raised, in its entire perspective. Whether or not the court would enlarge the scope is, however, a question which is largely dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia represented the Appellant, while AOR Nupur Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant retired after serving the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Punjab (GoP) for 34 years. Eleven days earlier, a charge-sheet was issued against him for not complying with the directions of the Election Commission, absence from duty, and issuing threats to a Senior Assistant. Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority ordered a permanent 2% cut in his pension.
Proceedings before the High Court
The Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant challenging the Order of the Disciplinary Authority.
Aggrieved, the Appellant presented an intra-court Appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal in part by modifying the punishment imposed upon the Appellant by the Disciplinary Authority. Instead of the penalty of 2% pension cut with cumulative/permanent effect, the same was altered to 2% pension cut for a period of 5 years whereafter the Appellant was made entitled to full pension upon “completion of five years period from the date the inflicted punishment has been effected”.
Reasoning by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court deprecated the “vile acts” of State Officials while observing that certain officials of the Government of Punjab have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for daring to take them to the Court.
The Court also noted “If the court seized of the petition/appeal considers that the justice of the case before it demands enlargement of the scope, notwithstanding that a limited notice had been issued earlier, the court’s powers are not fettered particularly when enforcement of any Fundamental/Constitutional right is urged by the party approaching it. We, therefore, see no reason to accept the objection of Ms. Nupur and show the appellant the door at the threshold.”
“However, what has overwhelmed our ability of comprehension is that the Division Bench despite having returned clear findings in favour of the appellant adopted a hands-off approach by leaving the findings with regard to the charges untouched. In our considered opinion, the tenor of the impugned order does suggest that the Division Bench found the appellant to have been wronged and regard being had thereto, the Division Bench ought to have set things right by interfering with the findings and granting full relief that we intend to grant to the appellant,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The impugned order of the Division Bench is set aside together with the order of dismissal passed by the Single Judge. The order of penalty passed by the appellant’s Disciplinary Authority also stands set aside and the writ petition is allowed. We direct that the appellant shall be entitled to full pension without any cut. Whatever quantum has been deducted from his pension shall be returned, within three months from date, together with interest @ 6% per annum.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State Of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 83)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Satish Tamta; Advocates Gireish Kandpal and Chirag Joshi; AOR Ghanshyam Joshi
Respondent: Advocate Anubha Dhulia; AOR Akshat Kumar