2025 Supreme(SC) 700

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
Ram Prakash Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024
Decided on : 23-04-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Punishment – Though Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to departmental enquiries, which are not judicial proceedings, nevertheless, principles flowing therefrom can be applied in specific cases.
(2) Punishment – Whatever be legal (non)requirement or factual position, enquiry report has to be furnished – That is the law – Report has to be furnished because it is an integral part of natural justice and consideration of report behind back of delinquent employee would effectively deprive him of protective shield of ‘reasonable opportunity to defend’ charges.
(3) No proof of prejudice for breach of a statutory rule or principles of natural justice and fair play need be proved, unless there is a waiver.
(4) Continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond time stipulated by a Tribunal/Court could invite interdiction if no bona fide attempt is shown to have been made to seek an extension of time.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Punishment – Reversal by Tribunal – Enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer in clear disregard of 1999 Rules – Respondent has been punished by disciplinary authority without due process being followed in taking disciplinary action against him – Though Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to departmental enquiries, which are not judicial proceedings, nevertheless, principles flowing therefrom can be applied in specific cases – Evidence tendered by witnesses must be recorded in presence of delinquent employee, he should be given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and no document should be relied on by prosecution without giving copy thereof to delinquent - all these basic principles of fair play have their root in such Act – In such light, documents referred to in list of documents forming part of annexures to charge-sheet, on which department seeks to rely in enquiry, cannot be treated as legal evidence worthy of forming basis for a finding of guilt if contents of such documents are not spoken to by persons competent to speak about them – A document does not prove itself – In the enquiry, contents of relied-on documents have to be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of contents of such document and who can depose as regards its authenticity – In present case, no such exercise was undertaken by producing any witness – Enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer in a manner not authorised by law could not have formed basis of order of punishment imposed on respondent. [Rules 7(vii) and 9 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999] (Paras 9, 14 and 18)

(B) Service Law – Punishment – Reversal by Tribunal – Except that respondent had not participated in second round of enquiry and disciplinary authority was not under obligation to furnish him enquiry report, no other worthy explanation is forthcoming as to why such report was not furnished to respondent – There has been blatant disregard by appellant of not only principles of natural justice and the judicial command by not furnishing enquiry report but also by not following applicable statutory rule – Enquiry stands wholly vitiated – Continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond time stipulated by a Tribunal/Court could invite interdiction if no bona fide attempt is shown to have been made to seek an extension of time – No useful purpose will be served by reviving disciplinary proceedings and in remitting the case to appellant – Issue must be given a quietus because Tribunal or High Court did not commit any illegality – Tribunal and High Court were correct and justified in not granting one more opportunity to appellant to resume proceedings from stage invalidity in proceedings was detected – Impugned order of High Court, not suffering from any legal infirmity, does not warrant any interference and deserves to be upheld – Respondent shall be entitled to full retiral benefits from date of his superannuation without any sum being deducted – However, provisional pension received by him may be adjusted with arrears. [Rules 7(vii) and 9 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999] (Paras 59, 60, 62, 63, 71, 72 and 73)

(C) Service Law – Punishment – Reversal by Tribunal – Non-furnishing of enquiry report on delinquent employee – Right to receive enquiry report is a fundamental safeguard in disciplinary proceedings, where such report holds charges against delinquent employee to be established – This valuable right applies uniformly, regardless of who the employer is (Government, public or private) and regardless of what rules governing service ordain – Even if rules are silent or do not require furnishing of enquiry report, same has to be furnished – Additionally, report must be furnished to employee even without a request, as it forms an integral part of ensuring a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend against charges – By not furnishing report, employer cannot scuttle rights of delinquent employee – Furnishing of report of enquiry though is a procedural step, it is of a mandatory character – However, such a requirement can be waived by delinquent employee, expressly or by conduct, but if on facts he is found not to have waived his right to receive report, theory of substantial compliance or test of ‘prejudice’ would not be applicable. (Paras 37 and 39)

(D) Service Law – Punishment – Reversal by Tribunal – Non-furnishing of enquiry report on delinquent employee – Whatever be legal (non)requirement or factual position, report has to be furnished – That is the law – Report has to be furnished because it is an integral part of natural justice and consideration of report behind back of delinquent employee would effectively deprive him of protective shield of ‘reasonable opportunity to defend’ charges – Providing a delinquent employee with an opportunity to respond to enquiry report is a crucial procedural step that must precede disciplinary action – Right to receive report of enquiry being available prior to a final decision being taken in disciplinary proceedings cannot be postponed by any arbitrary act of employer in not following law, which can be or should be validated by court and what was intended to be a pre-decisional opportunity cannot be made to partake character of a post-decisional opportunity – In case Tribunal/Court is satisfied that real effort was made by employer but such effort remained abortive because report could not be furnished to employee for reason(s) beyond its control, or some other justification is placed on record, which is acceptable to Tribunal/Court, test of ‘prejudice’ is open to be applied but only after ensuring service of a copy of enquiry report on employee – In a case where employee either expressly or by his conduct appears to have waived requirement of having access to report, it would be open to Tribunal/Court to deal with situation as per its discretion – Should satisfactory explanation be not proffered by employer for its failure/omission/neglect to furnish enquiry report, that ought to be sufficient for invalidating proceedings and directing resumption from stage of furnishing report – No proof of prejudice for breach of a statutory rule or principles of natural justice and fair play need be proved, unless there is a waiver. (Paras 42, 45, 51 and 52)

Facts of the case:

Challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to a judgment and order dated 19th October, 2019 of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. It is laid by State of Uttar Pradesh, unsuccessful writ petitioner [appellant]. Impugned order dismissed writ petition [Writ Petition (S/B) No. 28859/2019] of appellant, wherein final order of Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal [Tribunal] dated 19th November, 2018 was under challenge. Tribunal set aside order of punishment dated 24th March, 2015 imposing penalty of Rs. 10.25 lakh along with a 5% reduction in pension for five years on Ram Prakash Singh [Respondent].

Findings of Court:

Pensionary benefits to be computed and balance sum of pension together with other retiral benefits be released in favour of respondent as early as possible, but positively within three months from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. In default, sum payable to respondent shall carry interest @ 6% per annum and High Court too shall be free to carry contempt proceedings forward.

Result : Appeal dismissed.