IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Punishment – Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been applied when Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority held charges proved against delinquent officer – There cannot be any claim of negative equality in such cases.
(2) Punishment – In a case where it is found that enquiry is not conducted properly and/or same is in violation of principles of natural justice, in that case, Court cannot reinstate employee as such and matter is to be remanded to Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with enquiry from stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Service Bench No. 5554 of 2020 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has refused to set aside the order passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) passed in Claim Petition No. 2226 of 2017 whereby the claim petition of the respondent employee came to be allowed and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty/punishment came to be set aside, the State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred the present appeals.

2. That the respondent employee was serving as a Junior Engineer at Balia. An enquiry was conducted by a Departmental Task Force where it was found that he had committed financial irregularities causing loss to the Government. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and others. The respondent was served with charge-sheet. That thereafter the Enquiry Officer held the charges alleged against the respondent employee as proved and consequently also held the misconduct proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of recovery of Government loss of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- as per the rules from the salary; temporarily stopping two salary increments and the remarks given for the year 2017-2018.

2.1 The respondent filed a representation against the said order before the State Government, which came to be rejected. That thereafter the respondent filed a Claim Petition No. 2226 of 2017 before the Tribunal challenging the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal allowed the said petition and quashed the punishment mainly on the ground of Doctrine of Equality and also on the ground that the enquiry conducted was in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as the relevant documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal quashing and setting aside the punishment, the State preferred the writ petition before the High court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. That thereafter the State preferred Review Application No. 138 of 2021 before the High Court. The High Court has dismissed the said review application also.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the High Court in Service Bench No. 5554 of 2020 as well as the order passed by the High Court rejecting the review application, the State has preferred the present appeals.

3. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the present case fullest opportunity was given to the respondent-delinquent officer by the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the respondent was served with the Enquiry Report and thereafter was given the opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority and after considering the detailed representation by the respondent employee against the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment, which ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal.

3.1 It is further submitted that assuming that the Enquiry Proceedings were vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, in that case also as per the settled proposition of law, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that however, when it is a case of loss to the extent of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- that too, by the Junior Engineer, the respondent employee cannot be permitted t