MP High Court Quashes Employee's Dismissal, Citing 'No Evidence' Enquiry and Natural Justice Violations

Bhopal: In a significant ruling underscoring the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in departmental enquiries, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has set aside the dismissal order of a Bhopal Development Authority (BDA) employee. Justice SanjayDwivedi , presiding over the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, held that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from fundamental flaws, including being based on 'no evidence', the non-supply of the enquiry report, and a non-speaking dismissal order by the disciplinary authority.

The petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Grade I and held the additional charge of Incharge Revenue Officer at BDA, was suspended and subsequently dismissed from service based on charges related to alleged collusion causing loss to the authority in a land lease matter from 2005.

Background of the Case

The petitioner was assigned the work of calculating penalties and valuation for a lease deed executed in 2015 related to land leased to M/s Raj Homes. He was suspended in July 2016 along with two other employees, facing six charges of misconduct. A charge sheet was issued, followed by an enquiry.

The petitioner challenged his suspension and later the disciplinary proceedings through multiple petitions. His main contentions against the dismissal order dated May 7, 2018, and the appellate order dated March 5, 2019, were:

• The enquiry was vitiated as no witnesses were examined by the department, making it a case of 'no evidence'.
• Documents relied upon were not proved during the enquiry.
• The Disciplinary Authority failed to apply its own mind and merely adopted the Enquiry Officer's recommendation for major penalty.
• The enquiry report was not supplied to him, denying a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the findings.
• The punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.
• Other officers facing similar allegations were either exonerated or given lesser punishments, indicating discrimination.

The respondents argued that the enquiry was conducted according to law and the scope of judicial interference under Article 226 in disciplinary matters is limited.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Dwivedi meticulously examined the enquiry report and the dismissal order. The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer's report, while considering the charges and the petitioner's reply, appeared to be based on the officer's "own opinion" and unproved documents, as "no witness was produced and examined" by the department during the enquiry.

The Court held that the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was a "non-speaking order" and demonstrated a complete "without application of mind". The order merely reiterated the Enquiry Officer's report and recommendations, without providing any reasons why the petitioner's defence was found insufficient or why the punishment of dismissal was deemed appropriate. The Court emphasized that applying principles of natural justice requires the disciplinary authority to consider the employee's stand and provide reasons for disagreeing with it.

Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar , the High Court reiterated the crucial right of an employee to receive a copy of the enquiry report when the Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority. This right is an "integral part" of the opportunity to defend against charges, and its denial is a breach of natural justice. The Court found that in the present case, neither was the report supplied nor was any reason given for not supplying it.

The Court also referred to Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran regarding the scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 in disciplinary proceedings. While the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence like an appellate authority, interference is permissible if the enquiry is based on no evidence, violates natural justice, or the conclusions are wholly arbitrary. The present case, the Court found, squarely fell within these exceptions, being a case of 'no evidence' and blatant violation of natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court took note of the petitioner's submission, supported by rejoinder documents, that other officers facing similar charges had been exonerated, highlighting a potential issue of discrimination when the department failed to provide a basis for different treatment despite the alleged lack of evidence against the petitioner.

While the Court referenced cases like Dinesh Kumar Bilthare vs. State of M.P. and K.C. Kandwal vs. State of M.P. concerning the doctrine of proportionality and the reluctance of the High Court to substitute punishment, the primary grounds for setting aside the dismissal were the fundamental procedural irregularities and the lack of evidence in the enquiry itself.

Decision

Holding the procedure adopted by the respondents as "purely illegal" and "apparently contrary to the principles of natural justice," the Court set aside the impugned dismissal order dated May 7, 2018, and the appellate order dated March 5, 2019.

The respondents have been directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all back wages and consequential benefits. The Court found it a fit case for interference in judicial review of a disciplinary matter under Article 226.

The ruling reinforces the mandatory requirement for disciplinary authorities to conduct fair enquiries based on proved evidence, apply independent mind while deciding on punishment, and ensure compliance with natural justice principles, including supplying the enquiry report to the employee.