Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 784
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Debasish Kar Gupta, J.
HIRENDRA NATH HALDER - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W. P. 9718 (W) Of 2003
Decided On : 12/12/2006
ACHIN MAJUMDER, Mahadeb Khan, Pradip Kumar Sen
Disciplinary proceedings against delinquent employees must be conducted fairly and impartially, following due process and providing an opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - CHARGE-SHEET - BIASED - ENQUIRY REPORT - PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES - PUNISHMENT ORDER - NON-APPLICATION OF MIND - APPELLATE ORDER - NON-SPEAKING ORDER - QUASHING OF ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the Industrial Security Force, was dismissed from service following a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him based on a charge-sheet alleging theft and habitual indiscipline. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet, enquiry report, punishment order, and appellate order in a writ petition, alleging various procedural irregularities and bias.
Finding of the Court:
1. The charge-sheet was issued with a closed mind, as it contained a predetermined conclusion that the petitioner was a habitual indisciplined and incorrigible member of the force, without providing an opportunity to dispel the conclusion. 2. The enquiry report was vitiated by procedural irregularities, including the examination of additional witnesses and reliance on additional documents without furnishing the list to the petitioner. 3. The punishment order was passed without considering the petitioner's representation highlighting the procedural irregularities in the enquiry proceeding. 4. The appellate order was a non-speaking order, as it did not provide any reasons for rejecting the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge-sheet was issued with a closed mind? 2. Whether the enquiry report was vitiated by procedural irregularities? 3. Whether the punishment order was passed without considering the petitioner's representation? 4. Whether the appellate order was a non-speaking order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A charge-sheet should not be issued with a biased and closed mind, and the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is to inquire into the facts against a delinquent officer, not to form a positive and firm view and then provide an opportunity to dispel the conclusion. 2. Procedural irregularities, such as examining additional witnesses and relying on additional documents without furnishing the list to the delinquent employee, vitiate the enquiry proceeding. 3. The disciplinary authority must consider the delinquent employee's representation highlighting procedural irregularities in the enquiry proceeding before passing the punishment order. 4. An appellate order must be a reasoned order, providing reasons for rejecting the grounds of appeal raised by the delinquent employee.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the charge-sheet, enquiry report, punishment order, and appellate order due to procedural irregularities and bias.
( 2 ) THE fact of the case is this the petitioner was a constable of industrial Security Force. While he was posted at Farakka Barrage Project, farakka in the District of Murshidabad a charge-sheet dated October 31, 2000 was served upon him. The charges levelled against the petitioner on the basis of the above charge-sheet were that while he was on duty at mechanical stores at Farakka Barrage Project Workshops on September 5, 2000, a theft took place at his place of duty due to his gross negligence. The second charge was that he was habitual offender for which he had previously earned punishments on seven occasions. The petitioner submitted a representation dated February 11, 2002 to the Enquiry Officer for supply of certain documentary evidences. But the Enquiry Officer refused to supply him those records. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated February 23, 2002 to the disciplinary authority for change of the enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority as per his communication dated march 10, 2002 rejected such prayer. When the enquiry proceeding was in progress, the prosecution witness No. 7, A. S. I. , B. V. V. Satyanarayana submitted a representation to the disciplinary authority raising a complain against the Enquiry Officer with regard to recording of evidences. The petitioner further filed a written defence statement dated August 19, 2002 to the Enquiry Officer. Then the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated september 7, 2002 to the disciplinary authority a copy of which was sent to the petitioner giving an opportunity to him to submit representation. The petitioner submitted his representation dated October 4, 2002 to the above enquiry report. Then the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated october 10, 2002 in the matter removing the petitioner from the service. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated October 10, 2002 against the final order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority against him before the appellate authority. The appellate authority as per order dated May 13, 2003 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Hence this writ application.
( 3 ) MR. Achin Majumder, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner with closed mind because in the charge-sheet it was stated that it was established that the petitioner was a habitual indiscipline incorrigible member of the force, the offence committed by the petitioner amounted to gross misconduct and there was no mark of improvement on the part of the petitioner for performance of security duty/discipline. The second submission of Mr. Majumder is this the list of documents and list of witnesses relating to the first charge was not supplied to the petitioner. The charge-sheet is liable to be set aside on the above two grounds. The next submission of Mr. Majumder is this though there was a representation of the petitioner to change the Enquiry Officer, no step was taken to that effect. Further the prosecution witnesses No. 7 also raised a complain regarding the transparency of the procedure followed in course of enquiry proceeding but the disciplinary authority did not pay any hit to the same. Mr. Majumdar submits that the enquiry report is liable to be set aside on another ground that the relevant documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in preparing the enquiry report were not supplied to the petitioner. Mr. Majumder further submits that the Enquiry Officer allowed four additional witnesses and took into consideration additional documents without furnishing the list of the same to the petitioner. And as such the enquiry report is liable t
