Disciplinary Action Based on No Evidence & 'Non-Charges' is a Perverse Exercise of Power: Allahabad High Court - 2025-08-13

Allahabad HC Reinstates Employees, Slams College for 'Sham' Disciplinary Action Based on 'Non-Charges'

Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh: In a significant ruling on service law, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the termination of two Class-IV employees of a government-aided college, finding the disciplinary proceedings against them to be based on "virtually non-charges" and "a total absence of material." Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.J. Munir reinstated the employees, highlighting that the entire action appeared to be a mala fide attempt to clear the path for the promotion of the college manager's nephew.

The Core Dispute: Promotion Claims vs. Disciplinary Action

The case involved two writ petitions filed by Jai Prakash (a Watchman) and Nanku Ram (a Gardener) of Vikramaditya Inter College, Prayagraj. Both were dismissed from service following separate disciplinary inquiries.

The petitioners argued that their dismissals were a vindictive response to them staking their claims for promotion to Class-III posts. They alleged that the College Manager, Bankey Bihari Singh, orchestrated their removal to facilitate the promotion of his nephew, Janardan Singh, who was also a Class-IV employee.

The management, however, initiated disciplinary action based on charges that the petitioners had stolen official documents and used them to instigate litigation against the institution, including a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Petitioners' Arguments

• The disciplinary proceedings were a sham, initiated with a predetermined outcome.
• The charges were baseless and fabricated to remove them from service.
• The primary motive was to eliminate competition for the Manager's nephew, who was seeking the same promotion.

Respondent College's Arguments

• The petitioners were involved in misconduct, including theft of documents, conspiracy, and insubordination.
• They used the stolen documents to file and support court cases against the institution, tarnishing its image.
• The disciplinary inquiries were conducted fairly, and the punishment was justified.

Court's Scathing Analysis of the Inquiry

Justice Munir conducted a meticulous, charge-by-charge deconstruction of the inquiry reports, finding them to be legally unsustainable and perverse.

On Charges Against Jai Prakash

The Court systematically dismantled all six charges against Jai Prakash, which included theft, conspiracy, and using unparliamentary language.

On the central charge of stealing documents, the Court noted the complete lack of evidence:

"There is no first information report of a theft of these documents nor testimony of witnesses, who might have seen the petitioner, Jai Prakash steal the documents or take out photocopies, or other tangible material, that may give rise to an inference about the case of a theft. The conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer on the first charge are bereft of any material at all."

Regarding the charge of misleading the High Court in a separate petition, Justice Munir declared it a "non-charge," stating:

"It is no business of the employer to take cognizance of suppression of facts... from this Court in a writ petition as service misconduct... The charge itself is utterly misconceived and so are the findings."

The Court concluded that the findings on every charge were "not at all valid in law," having been reached without evidence and based on perverse reasoning.

On Charges Against Nanku Ram

The Court found the inquiry against Nanku Ram, who faced charges of forgery and abetting litigation, to be equally flawed. It identified a fundamental breach of natural justice, as the inquiry was conducted through a mere question-and-answer format without the examination of any witnesses.

Citing established Supreme Court precedents like State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank , the Court reiterated the mandatory requirement of leading evidence in a disciplinary inquiry.

The judgment observed:

"This Court is constrained to say that in keeping with the salutary principle, this is certainly not the procedure countenanced by the law to prove a charge against an employee, which may lead to the imposition of a major penalty."

The Court also noted the procedural unfairness of not offering a defence assistant to Nanku Ram, a gardener who was clearly not equipped to handle the legal complexities of the inquiry.

The Final Verdict and Its Implications

The Allahabad High Court delivered a split but decisive verdict for the two petitioners:

• Jai Prakash (Writ-A No. 15765 of 2014): The petition was allowed in full. His termination order was quashed, and the Court ordered his immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits , including full back wages.

• Nanku Ram (Writ-A No. 51031 of 2015): The petition was allowed in part. His termination was quashed, and he was ordered to be reinstated forthwith. However, the Court gave the college management the liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry from the charge-sheet stage on two of the four charges, strictly adhering to the procedures laid down in the judgment. His entitlement to arrears was made subject to the outcome of this fresh proceeding.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder to employers that disciplinary proceedings cannot be a tool for victimization. The Court has underscored that any finding of guilt must be supported by tangible evidence and adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice, failing which the entire action is liable to be struck down.