HARI NIWAS GUPTA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

HARI NIWAS GUPTA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court affirmed that orders under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) require reasons recorded in writing before the dismissal order; quashing the impugned dismissal for failure to record reasons annulled the order but did not preclude the High Court, within its disciplinary control, from fresh consideration and, if justified, invoking clause (b) in accordance with law after recording reasons.

Parties
Appellant: Hari Niwas Gupta; Appellant: Komal Ram; Appellant: Jitendra Nath Singh; Respondent: State of Bihar; Respondent: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 311(2) Clause (b), Disciplinary Proceedings, Recording of Reasons, Control of High Court Over Subordinate Judiciary, Reinstatement and Pensionary Benefits
Constitutional Law Service Law Judicial Service Article 311(2) Clause (b) Disciplinary Proceedings Recording of Reasons Control of High Court Over Subordinate Judiciary Reinstatement and Pensionary Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Niwas Gupta

Appellant

Komal Ram

Appellant

Jitendra Nath Singh

Appellant

State of Bihar

Respondent

High Court of Judicature at Patna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) can be validly invoked without reasons recorded in writing before the order of dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the High Court (as disciplinary authority) or only the Governor is competent to decide dispensing with inquiry under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2)
  3. 3 Whether the Division Bench erred in granting liberty to the High Court to invoke clause (b) at an 'appropriate stage' after quashing the dismissal order

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court affirmed that orders under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) require reasons recorded in writing before the dismissal order; quashing the impugned dismissal for failure to record reasons annulled the order but did not preclude the High Court, within its disciplinary control, from fresh consideration and, if justified, invoking clause (b) in accordance with law after recording reasons.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Stay order dated 11.09.2015 vacated
  • Respondents required to proceed in accordance with law as per Division Bench judgment (including requirement to record reasons if clause (b) is invoked)