Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 222

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
Sudhir Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 15366 of 2017
Decided on : 10-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder, Ms. Ananya Adhikary
For the Respondent: Mr. Souvik Nandy

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the central legal point that the violation of principles of natural justice, including the denial of an opportunity to respond to the charges before initiating an enquiry and the failure to provide the delinquent employee with a copy of the enquiry officer's report before making a decision on the charges, constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice and vitiates the disciplinary proceeding.

Headnote:
Disciplinary Enquiry - Railway Protection Force - Rule 153.3 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 - Rule 153.3, Rule 152.1, Rule 153.2.1, Rule 148.2 - The court discussed the violation of principles of natural justice, bias, and irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to respond to the charges before initiating an enquiry and the need for the disciplinary authority to consider the delinquent employee's response before deciding whether to conduct an enquiry. The court also highlighted the requirement for the delinquent employee to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority makes a decision on the charges, as a denial of this right constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was placed under suspension and served with a charge sheet alleging indiscipline and misconduct. The petitioner responded to the charge sheet, but the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty without providing an opportunity to respond to the findings of the enquiry report. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the entire disciplinary proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to respond to the charges before initiating the enquiry and by not allowing the delinquent employee to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before making a decision on the charges. The court held that the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated from the stage of the communication dated 31st May, 2016, and set aside the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, bias, irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings, denial of opportunity to respond to the charges and the enquiry report, and failure to consider the delinquent employee's response before making a decision on the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to respond to the charges before initiating an enquiry and the need for the disciplinary authority to consider the delinquent employee's response before deciding whether to conduct an enquiry. The court also highlighted the requirement for the delinquent employee to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority makes a decision on the charges, as a denial of this right constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding from the stage of the communication dated 31st May, 2016, and directed the higher disciplinary authority to make available the opinion of the Assistant Security Commissioner for the petitioner to respond to. If the opinion is not forwarded within a specified period, the entire enquiry proceeding shall stand lapsed, and the respondents shall be obliged to reinstate the petitioner in service.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the charge sheet dated 8th September 2015, the findings of the enquiry officer dated 25th May 2016, the order of dismissal dated 1st July 2016 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 12th April 2017.

2. The petitioner, at the material point of time, was posted at RPF, Chakradharpur, when by an order dated 19th March 2014 passed by the Assistant Security Commissioner, South Eastern Railway, he was placed under suspension on the ground of contemplation of disciplinary proceeding in terms of Section 134 (a) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”). After expiry of more than one year and six months, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 8th September 2015, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner had committed an indiscipline, undesirable and unwarranted act which has tarnished the image and reputation of the force.

3. The petitioner had duly responded to the said charge sheet by filling a written statement. Following the aforesaid, a disciplinary enquiry was held against the petitioner and after conclusion of enquiry by a cover of letter dated 31st May 2016, was served with a copy of the enquiry report. Although, the petitioner had responded to the same, a superior disciplinary authority of the petitioner being the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner held the petitioner guilty by passing an order dated 1st July 2016. The petitioner had thereafter, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.

4. Since, the same was kept pending the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPA 26950 of 2016. In terms of direction passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the appellate authority was, inter alia, pleased to reject the said appeal by holding that there is no valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

5. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, by placing the provisions of Rule 153.3 of the said Rules submits that the disciplinary authority while deciding to hold an enquiry is bound to decide whether it is a case for minor or major penalty. Admittedly, in the present case, no opportunity to show cause was given to the petitioner prior to taking a decision to hold an enquiry against him. By referring to the charge sheet it is submitted that at the time of framing the charges, not only the disciplinary authority had made up its mind for holding of an enquiry but also by appointing the enquiry officer fixed the date of enquiry.

6. By placing reliance on Rule 153.3 of the said Rules it is submitted that the disciplinary authority at the first instance upon receipt of the complaint or otherwise or on going through the facts alleged or brought out has to consider, whether it is a case for major or minor penalty. It is only, thereafter, charges ought to be framed and an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the petitioner to respond to such charge sheet. It is only upon receipt of the reply to such charge sheet, if the reply is not found to be satisfactory that an enquiry should be ordered. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority, while framing the charges, did not bother to issue any show cause notice inviting response from the petitioner. The disciplinary authority further while assuming the mantle of an enquiry authority, fixed the date of enquiry.

7. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority had made up its mind at the time of issuance of the charge sheet to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. This, itself according to Mr. Majumder shows bias and is sufficient to vitiate the entire enquiry proceeding.

8. In support of the aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjoy Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2002 (2) SLR 266 and another