2014 Supreme(SC) 699

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR & A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
Vijay Shankar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9043 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12019 of 2014)
Decided On : 22-09-2014

Important Point—Right to judicial remedies for redressal of either personal or public grievances is a constitutional right of both citizens and non-citizens of this country.

Headnote:(A) All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968—Rules 3, 7, 8 and 17—All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969—Rule 8(3)—Disciplinary proceeding—Charge-sheet—Exoneration by Enquiry Officer—Order to constitute a two member Inquiry Board to again enquire into charges framed against appellant—Normal rule is that there can be only one Enquiry—Fact that Report submitted by Enquiring Authority is not acceptable to disciplinary authority, is not a ground for completely setting aside enquiry report and ordering second Enquiry—Rule 8(15) cannot have any application where delinquent officer admits correctness of factual allegations against him—Rule only prohibits a member of service from having recourse either to Court or to press for vindication of official acts of such member which have been subject matter of adverse criticism or a defamatory attack—It is not the content of any one of charges against appellant that he sought to vindicate any one of his official acts by filing WP—Filing of writ petition containing allegations that Government of India is lax in discharging its constitutional obligations of establishing rule of law can be said to amount to either failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct unbecoming of a member of the service—Impugned order is wholly untenable—Appeal allowed with cost of Rs.5 Lakhs. (Paras 23, 27, 28, 35, 41 and 45)

       (1971) 2 SCC 102—Applied.

       (B) Service Law—Disciplinary proceeding—Enquiry report—Only admitted fact about report is that appellant was exonerated of all charges made against him—If such a conclusion is otherwise justified, whether report is cursory or elaborate, should make no difference to legality of report—What matters is correctness of conclusions recorded, not length or elegance of language of report which determines legality of conclusions recorded in it. (Para 27)

       (C) Service Law—Disciplinary proceeding—Procrastination—Absence of any satisfactory explanation of the slowness of pace of investigation and lack of any credible answers as to why respondents did not act with respect to those actions that were feasible and within the ambit of powers of Enforcement Directorate itself, such as custodial investigation, leads to conclude that lack of seriousness in efforts of respondents are contrary to requirements of laws and constitutional obligations of Union of India. (Para 41)

       (2011) 8 SCC 1—Relied.

       (D) Constitution of India—Article 14—Rule of law—Constitution declares that India is a sovereign democratic Republic—Requirement of such democratic republic is that every action of State is to be informed with reason—State is not a hierarchy of regressively genuflecting coterie of bureaucracy—Right to judicial remedies for redressal of either personal or public grievances is a constitutional right of subjects (both citizens and non-citizens) of this country—Employees of State cannot become members of a different and inferior class to whom such right is not available. (Paras 42 and 43)

       Facts of case—Appellant is an officer of Indian Administrative Service. He was served with a charge-sheet consisting of five charges leading to deprivation from promotion. By impugned judgment writ petition was dismissed by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court.

       Findings of Court—Right to judicial remedies for redressal of either personal or public grievances is a constitutional right of subjects (both citizens and non-citizens) of this country. Employees of State cannot become members of a different and inferior class to whom such right is not available. O.A. stands allowed as prayed for. Respondents are liable jointly and severally to pay costs to appellant. It is open to respondents to identify those who are responsible for initiation of such unwholesome action against appellant and recover amounts, if respondents can and have political will.