! IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7084 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUSM.S. SOKHI RESPONDENT O R D E R Heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned ASG for theappellants, and Mr. Atul Batra, advocate for therespondent. Mr. Malhotra is right in his submission that thereasons assigned by the High Court for interfering withthe order of dismissal passed against the respondentand directing that he would be entitled to allconsequential benefits are quite untenable in law. Butthere are certain other facts and circumstances forwhich we are not inclined to completely set aside theorder; we would rather modify the reliefs allowed tothe respondent by the High Court. The respondent worked as Superintendent in theCustoms and Central Excise Collectorate. He was givena charge-sheet alleging that during the period 1968 to1987 (20 years) he acquired and was found in possessionof property which was in excess of his known sources ofincome by Rs.93,000/-. On the same charge a criminalinvestigation was also held by the CBI in which it wasfound that the extent of disproportionate assets heldby the respondent was only Rs.41,000/-. Observing thatit was an inconsequential amount, the CBI submittedclosure report. Nonetheless, in the disciplinaryproceedings, the respondent was dismissed from servicein the year 1994. Had he continued in service or had
he been reinstated in service in terms of the HighCourt order, he would have superannuated in June,1995. Mr. Batra submitted that respondent is now over 75years old and even though there is no stay order passedin this appeal, he was not even getting his pension andother retiral dues etc. He also submitted that therespondent is willing to forego his arrears of salaryin terms of the High Court order and he would notclaim any interest on the arrears of his pension. In view of the stand taken by the respondent, weset aside the High Court order only insofar as itdirects that the respondent would be entitled to allconsequential benefits, which in practical terms meansthat he would get the salary from the date of dismissalto the date of his superannuation. It is made clearthat the respondent would be entitled to retiral duesincluding pension, which would be paid to him withinfour months from today but with no interest on thearrears. The appeal is disposed of but with no order as tocosts. .....................J (AFTAB ALAM) .....................J (R.M. LODHA)NEW DELHI,JULY 28, 2011.ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7084 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSM.S. SOKHI Respondent(s)Date: 28/07/2011 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Appellant(s) Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. For Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Batra, Adv. For Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. (Neetu Khajuria) (S.S.R. Krishna) Sr.P.A. Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file.)
4ITEM NO.103 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7084 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.K. HANJURAUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSM.S. SOKHI Respondent(s)Date: 26/04/2011 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr Parmanand Pandey, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The ld. Counsel for the appellants is present. He hasalready filed the statement of case. The ld. Counsel shallprovide a copy of the statement of case to the ld. Counselfor the respondent against proper acknowledgment and the ld.Counsel for the respondent shall file the statement of casewithin a period of 35 days thereafter. The matter shall be processed for listing before theHon'ble Court in accordance with the rules after the periodstipulated above. (M.K.HANJURA) Registrarhj
´ITEM NO.49 Court No.9 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12560/2010(From the judgement and order dated 03/08/2009 in WP No. 3889/1999of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSM.S. SOKHI Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 25/08/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Adv. Mr. C.P. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Batra, Adv. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Hearing expedited. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENUKA SADANA) Court Master Court Master
²ITEM NO.44 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12560/2010UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSM.S. SOKHI Respondent(s)Date: 30/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Amitava Poddar, Adv. Ms. Reshma Gehlod, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R No request for filing counter affidavit. List before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (S.G. SHAH) Registrarrd
àITEM NO.20 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2010(CC 5789/2010)(From the judgement and order dated 03/08/2009 in WP No.3889/1999of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSM.S. SOKHI Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 19/04/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice, limited to the question as to whether the High Court was right in directing the Union of India to pay all consequential benefits to the respondent, who stood retired on 30th June, 1995. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar