CASE ANALYSIS – Union of India v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar

BRIEF FACTS

1. The original respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, an employee at the Naval Armament Depot, Bombay, was removed from service on 19th August, 1985, following a departmental enquiry. This order was upheld in a departmental appeal.
2. He challenged these orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, alleging that neither the charge sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon him.
3. The Tribunal found that the charge sheet sent by registered post was returned with the endorsement “not found”, and the show-cause notice was published in newspapers, deeming this service insufficient.
4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the removal order.
5. Subsequently, the Union of India challenged the ruling by filing an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ISSUES/QUESTIONS OF LAW

• Whether the service of the charge sheet, sent by registered post and returned with the endorsement “not found”, can be considered sufficient service.
• Whether the act of publishing a show-cause notice in a newspaper, without prior efforts to effect personal service, satisfies the requirements of valid legal service under the applicable procedural framework.
• Whether the principle of  “communication” of an order (i.e., its despatch) is sufficient for charge sheets and show-cause notices in disciplinary proceedings, as opposed to “actual service”.

REASONING

1. On the service of the charge sheet:

• The Court held that a charge sheet returned with the postal endorsement “not found” indicates it was not tendered to the addressee.
• Service by registered post is considered complete only when it is established that the document was tendered to the addressee.
• A single attempt at service, especially when the employee’s address was on record, was insufficient, and further efforts should have been made.
• Therefore, the initiation of departmental proceedings was bad due to non-service of the charge sheet.

2. On “Communication” v. “Actual Service”:

• The Court found that the appellant’s reliance on State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh was a misapplication of the law. 
• The principle that “communication” (despatch) of an order, rather than “actual service”, is sufficient applies to orders of termination or dismissal.
• However, for disciplinary proceedings, actual service of a charge sheet is essential because the employee must submit a reply and participate.
• Similarly, it is essential that the show-cause notice be properly served, since the concerned employee must be afforded a fair opportunity to respond before any disciplinary measure is taken.

3. Tribunal’s Reasoning (upheld by the Supreme Court):

• The Tribunal correctly found that the service of the charge sheet (returned “not found”) and the show-cause notice (published in a newspaper without proper prior attempts) was insufficient.

4. Conclusion on proceedings:

• Since neither the charge sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever actually served upon the original respondent, the entire disciplinary proceedings were vitiated.

DECISION/HOLDING

The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

REFERENCES

1. Manupatra, MANU/SC/0545/1998

“Written by Sushavan Das, Brainware University, Intern under Legal Vidhiya (July, 2025).”

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.