1. Departmental enquiry leading to removal from service — Challenge to the validity of the enquiry process and subsequent removal order. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 984
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
President, Nagar Panchayat Umari - Appellant
Versus
Shyam Charan Chaturvedi & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2515 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2166 of 2019)
Decided On : 14-07-2021
Important Points
Departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial and must follow principles of natural justice. Even if an employee refuses to participate, the department must establish charges through oral and documentary evidence. Findings based on suspicion or unexamined statements, without producing witnesses, are legally unsustainable.
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Headnote
Appeal - Respondent was removed from service by order, pursuant to a departmental enquiry - Appellate authority set aside order of removal after noticing procedural infirmities in departmental enquiry - Matter was remanded for fresh enquiry with further direction that respondent would continue under suspension in meantime – Held, enquiry officer donned mantle of presenting officer - He had before him charge memo, reply of respondent, certain documents and statements of persons who should have been produced as witnesses to prove documents, obtained outside enquiry - Tribunal has recorded an express finding that no witnesses were examined - Enquiry officer then proceeded to draw his own inferences on basis of these materials - Enquiry Officer held with regard to charge (a), Tax Collector had disclosed in his statement that he had not put his signature in stock register and that respondent had forged his signatures. Respondent in his written statement had denied charge asserting that Sri Singh had signed register - Forgery is question of fact - Even if respondent did not participate in enquiry, it did not absolve department from leading evidence of Tax Collector to prove that he had not signed Stock Register and his signature had been forged. No explanation is forthcoming why Tax Collector was not examined and in lieu his statement was obtained in writing - Inquiry Officer suo-motu examined signature of Tax Collector in stock register, compared it to other unspecified documents to come to conclusion that signature was forged and that conduct of respondent was suspicious - Court have no hesitation in holding that in absence of Tax Collector having been examined as a witness by leading evidence in support of his signature having been forged by respondent, enquiry officer arrived at unsubstantiated finding based on no material but founded on unfounded suspicion – Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Adv., Mr. T.L. Garg, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Adv., Mr. T.L. Garg, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR.
Table of Contents
2. Validity of departmental proceedings — Whether the enquiry violated principles of natural justice and whether findings were based on evidence or mere suspicion. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Enquiry officer acted as presenting officer — Failure to examine witnesses to prove charges — Findings based on suspicion and written statements without oral evidence. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )
4. Departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial — Department must establish charges through oral and documentary evidence even if the delinquent employee refuses to participate. (Para 9 )
5. High Court order upheld — Reinstatement not possible due to superannuation — 50% back wages and pensionary benefits granted. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
6. What is the legal nature of departmental proceedings and the role of the enquiry officer?
Departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial. The enquiry officer must act as an independent and impartial officer to find the truth, performing a neutral role rather than acting as a representative of the management. (Para 9 )
7. Must the department still prove charges if the delinquent employee refuses to participate in the enquiry?
Yes. Even if an employee prefers not to participate, the department must establish charges by adducing oral and documentary evidence. For major punishments, producing witnesses for oral evidence is necessary. (Para 9 )
8. Can a finding of guilt in a departmental enquiry be based on suspicion or written statements without examining witnesses?
No. Findings cannot be recorded on the basis of suspicion without proof. If charges involve facts like forgery, the relevant witnesses must be examined to prove the charges rather than relying on written statements. (Para 10 , 11 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 19.08.2017 allowing the writ application of respondent no.1. The High Court set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the respondent with consequential benefits opining that the departmental enquiry against the respondent had not been conducted in accordance with law.
3. The respondent, who was a clerk, was placed under suspension on 21.03.1994. Three charges were framed against him on 07.09.1994:
(a) Arbitrary installation of 15 electric poles.
(b) Non-compliance with the order for transfer and obtaining a stay order from the High Court.
(c) Acceptance of bribe from Matadin and eighteen other Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons and making allotments to them without governmental approval.
4. The respondent was removed from service by order dated 20.07.1996, pursuant to a departmental enquiry. The appellate authority on 02.04.1997 set aside the order of removal after noticing procedural infirmities in the departmental enquiry. The matter was remanded for fresh enquiry with the further direction that the respondent would continue under suspension in the meantime. A fresh enquiry report followed on 21.12.1999. The respondent was removed from service on 02.05.2000. The appellate authority exonerated the respondent of charge (b) only while upholding the findings with regard to charges (a) and (c). The State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow on 27.2.2001 also rejected his challenge to the appellate order.
5. Sri Rajiv Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. The respondent had refused to participate in the enquiry despite notice. The order of the High Court is cryptic, without reasons and suffers from non-application of mind. There is no discussion why the High Court opined that the proceedings were vitiated except for a bald conclusion that it was not conducted in accordance with law. The non-application of mind by the High Court is apparent from the fact that the High Court has also taken into consideration the second charge of which the respondent stood exonerated by the appellate authority. The enquiry officer having returned findings of fact based on evidence placed before him, which was declined interference by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, the High Court erred in holding that the proceedings were not held in accordance with law.
6. Sri Arjun Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the enquiry officer was only one rank above the delinquent contrary to the departmental circular that it had to be two ranks above a delinquent. The respondent was never noticed about the departmental proceedings and was thus denied the opportunity to participate and lead his defence. The proceedings were patently vitiated having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Shri Bhure Lal had sworn an affidavit that he had never served any notice on the respondent regarding the departmental proceedings. The Inquiry officer has opined that the conduct of the respondent was suspicious with regard to Charge (a). Relying on Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and others, (1999) 2 SCC 10, it was submitted that no finding of guilt can be recorded on basis of suspicion without proof. Even if the respondent did not participate in the enquiry, the charges had to be proved by leading evidence and examination of witnesses in support of the evidence. Reliance was placed on Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 582.
7. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The appellate authority having exonerated the respondent of charge (b), it is only charges (a) and (c) that now fall for our consideration.
8. We do not find any substance in the contention of the respondent that he was not noticed with regard to the departmental enquiry. The Tribunal had summoned the
