15 May 2025 Disciplinary Proceedings >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a civil appeal filed by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) and its Secretary, challenging a Gauhati High Court judgment that had quashed disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal of one of its employees, Smt. Phuholi Sema. The High Court's decision, which the Supreme Court has now affirmed, was primarily based on the non-applicability of certain service conduct rules and the lack of consultation with the Vigilance Commission.

Background of the Case:

Smt. Phuholi Sema, an Upper Division Assistant (UDA) in the NPSC's Exam Branch, was suspended on March 2, 2009, following allegations that she and a colleague tampered with 42 answer scripts of 11 candidates during examinations for Nagaland Civil Services and allied services. An FIR was also registered in connection with the incident.

Subsequently, a Memorandum of Charges was issued, which Sema denied. An Inquiry Officer from the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vigilance Commission, was appointed to investigate the matter. The Tribunal, in its report dated January 14, 2010, found Sema to have violated Rule 4(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Nagaland Government Servants Service Conduct Rules, 1968, for failing to maintain absolute integrity and acting in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. Based on this report, Sema was dismissed from service on March 31, 2010.

High Court's Findings:

Aggrieved by her dismissal, Sema approached the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench. The learned Single Judge, on June 11, 2012, allowed her petition, setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal order. The key reason was that an Office Memorandum dated July 12, 1976, mandated consultation with the Vigilance Commission for a free and fair proceeding, which was not done in Sema's case. The High Court concluded that the inquiry was incomplete.

The NPSC appealed this decision to a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on December 17, 2012, adding two crucial reasons:

1. Non-applicability of Service Conduct Rules: The High Court referred to Regulation 19 of the Nagaland Public Service Commission (Chairman, Members & Staff) Regulations, 2008, which states that "in respect of any matter for which provision is not made by these regulations, the conditions of service of a person serving as a member of the Commission or its staff shall be governed by the rules and orders for the time being applicable to such grades of Government servants as shall be specified by the Governor." The High Court observed that the NPSC failed to provide any order from the Governor specifying the adoption or applicability of the Service Conduct Rules, 1968, to the NPSC staff.
2. Statutory Requirement: The High Court opined that there could be no other method to apply statutory rules or regulations within the ambit of Article 318 of the Constitution, except as specified under Regulation 19.

Consequently, the High Court held that the alleged misconduct, as defined and provided in Rule 4(1) of the Service Conduct Rules, 1968, could not be applied to Sema. It proceeded to quash all related orders, including the Memorandum of Charges, the Tribunal proceedings, the inquiry report, and the dismissal order. The High Court also directed the NPSC to reinstate Sema as UDA with all consequential pecuniary and service benefits within three months.

Supreme Court's Decision:

The NPSC then appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of this appeal, it came to light that Smt. Phuholi Sema had attained the age of superannuation and retired from service.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court expressed "complete agreement with the reasoning of the High Court," finding no merit in the NPSC's appeal and dismissing it.

However, recognizing that Sema had retired and could not be fully reinstated, the Supreme Court modified the relief granted by the High Court. While affirming the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings, the Court directed that:

• Instead of full salary for the period from March 2010 until her superannuation, Sema would be paid 50% of the salary she was entitled to for that period, given that she had not worked during this time.
• She would receive the benefit of continuity of service, meaning her entire service period, including the period of dismissal, would be considered for superannuation benefits.
• All consequential monetary benefits related to her superannuation would accrue to her.
• The entire salary for the relevant period would be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension fixation, even though only 50% of the actual salary for that period would be paid as arrears.

The NPSC was directed to compute and pay these benefits within three months from the date of the order. The appeal was disposed of on these terms. Notably, the Supreme Court also acknowledged that a criminal case stemming from the same allegations (FIR No.22/2009) had resulted in Sema's acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, which was upheld by the District and Sessions Judge.