2010 Supreme(SC) 130

2010 (1) Supreme 561
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
Saroj Kumar Sinha — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2008
Decided on : 02-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Non-disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the government servant.
2. A government employee facing a department enquiry is entitled to all the relevant statement, documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the department enquiry against the charges.

Headnote:Service Law- U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - - Respondent posted as Executive Engineer at Construction Division-I, Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Rai Barielly. was served with the charge sheet making serious allegations of misconduct against him- Respondent made a written request to appellant demanding copies of the documents relied upon in the charge sheet- However no documents were supplied to respondent-Order passed by Appellant-Government removing the respondent from service and directing recovery of Rs.1,29,600/- from him-Writ Petition thereagainst-Allowed by High Court directing appellant to reinstate respondent with all consequential benefits- Appeal filed by State of U.P. - In the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court it was specifically mentioned that the documents pertained to the same division in which the respondent had been posted as Executive Engineer and therefore he being in knowledge and custody of said documents, there was no requirement for said documents to be supplied to the respondent-Held said submission was without any basis as respondent had been suspended on 5.2.2001.- Even if the respondent had continued in the same department it would not have been possible for him to take the custody of the documents as he would no longer be in charge of the office- Again even though relentless efforts were made by respondent to secure copies of documents, which was sought to be relied upon, to prove charges-However these were denied by department in flagrant disregard of the mandate of Rule 7 sub rule 5- Hence inquiry proceedings were clearly vitiated having been held in breach of the mandatory sub rule (5) of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules.- Not only the respondent had been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he had been condemned unheard as the enquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry- In other words, not a single witness had been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent- High Court, therefore, had rightly observed that the entire proceedings were vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of principles natural justice and total disregard of fair play- The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge sheet- Appellants miserably failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why the documents had not been supplied to the respondent- High Court, therefore, very appropriately set aside the order of removal-No reason to interfere with judgment of High Court-Appeal dismissed (Paras 21, 22, 24, 26, 31, 34, 37 to 40)

        Principles of Natural Justice- By virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice- It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee- When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise-The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind- The enquiry officer has to be wholly Unbiased- The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done- The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service (Paras 27, 28)

       Facts of the Case :

        Respondent posted as Executive Engineer at Construction Division-I, Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Rai Barielly. was served with the charge sheet making serious allegations of misconduct against him herein in the instant case. Respondent made a written request to appellant demanding copies of the documents relied upon in the charge sheet. However no documents were supplied to respondent. An Order was passed by Appellant-Government removing the respondent from service and directing recovery of Rs.1,29,600/- from him.Writ Petition thereagainst was allowed by High Court directing appellant to reinstate respondent with all consequential benefits.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        In the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court it was specifically mentioned that the documents pertained to the same division in which the respondent had been posted as Executive Engineer and therefore he being in knowledge and custody of said documents, there was no requirement for said documents to be supplied to the respondent.Held said submission was without any basis as respondent had been suspended. Even if the respondent had continued in the same department it would not have been possible for him to take the custody of the documents as he would no longer be in charge of the office. Again even though relentless efforts were made by respondent to secure copies of documents, which was sought to be relied upon, to prove charges. However these were denied by department in flagrant disregard of the mandate of Rule 7 sub rule 5.Hence inquiry proceedings were clearly vitiated having been held in breach of the mandatory sub rule (5) of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules. Not only the respondent had been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he had been condemned unheard as the enquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness had been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. High Court, therefore, had rightly observed that the entire proceedings were vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of principles natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge sheet. Appellants miserably failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why the documents had not been supplied to the respondent. High Court, therefore, very appropriately set aside the order of removal. No reason was found to interfere with judgment of High Court.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.