Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
Hari Ram Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council – Respondent
LPA 394 of 2020 & CM Appls. 33491 of 2020 & 33492 of 2020
Decided On : 25-07-2023
Mr. C.S. Nagesh, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Kaadambari Singh, ASC, for NDMC with Ms. Ayushi Ranade, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inquiry must be conducted in a fair manner and the delinquent employee must establish the prejudice caused to him by non-supply of any document to sustain the allegation of violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
Headnote:
Principles of Natural Justice - Disciplinary Inquiry - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - [PARTICIPATION IN ELECTION RALLY] - [CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964] - [Rule 3] - The court upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the appellant for participating in an election rally, as it was established during the inquiry proceedings that the appellant had participated in the election rally of his wife, which was a violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The court found that the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner and the appellant was given ample opportunity to defend himself, and thus, the punishment of compulsory retirement was justified.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Allopathic Pharmacist with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), was found participating in an election rally for his wife without permission, leading to disciplinary action and compulsory retirement. The appellant challenged the fairness of the inquiry proceedings and the reliance on criminal proceedings against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry against the appellant was conducted in a fair and transparent manner, in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice. The court upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the appellant, as it was established during the inquiry proceedings that the appellant had participated in the election rally of his wife, which was a violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Issues: The issues involved the fairness of the disciplinary inquiry, the reliance on criminal proceedings, and the violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner and the appellant was given ample opportunity to defend himself. The court also found that the reliance on criminal proceedings was justified as the appellant had admitted his presence at the election rally of his wife. The court emphasized that non-supply of documents does not create prejudice unless it is relied upon by the inquiry officer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the appellant for participating in the election rally, as it was established during the inquiry proceedings that the appellant had violated Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)--The present appeal has been filed against judgment dated 09th October, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 12808/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has held that the inquiry against appellant was conducted in a fair and transparent manner, in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice. Thus, the punishment of compulsory retirement pursuant to the inquiry, imposed upon appellant vide order dated 16th December, 2008 was upheld.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant was appointed as Allopathic Pharmacist with respondent - New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) on 08th April, 1976. He was seen by the police patrol participating in an election campaign for his wife, Mrs. Raj Laxmi, a candidate of Ward no. 97, Kirti Nagar from the political party "All India Forward Block". Since the said election rally was being held without any permission, the police tried to stop appellant and other persons present there. As they did not heed to the advice of the police, a Daily Diary Entry (DD Entry), was made on 03rd April, 2007 by Mr. Satish Singh, Sub-Inspector (SI), P.S. Moti Nagar, who was part of the police patrol party, to this effect. Pursuant to the DD Entry, photographs of appellant were taken by the police making a speech at his wife's campaign.
3. An intimation letter was sent by SI Satish Singh on 06th April, 2007 to the Secretary of respondent requesting that disciplinary action be taken against appellant. By way of the said letter, respondent was informed that appellant was addressing a public meeting by wearing a party logo on his clothes and was actively participating in the electioneering process.
4. Subsequently, charge sheet dated 24th July, 2007 was issued to appellant. The article of charges framed against appellant is reproduced as follows:
"STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI HARI RAM TIWARI, PHARMACIST, NDMC ALLOPATHIC DISPENSARY, ROHINI, DELHI
While working as Pharmacist, NDMC, Allopathic Dispensary Rohini, Delhi Shri Hari Ram Tiwari during-2007 has failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty as much as that:
He actively participated in Electioneering Process of Smt. Raj Laxmi, a candidate of ward-97, Kirti Nagar from Political Party namely "All India Forward Block" on 3.4.2007.
The above act on the part of Sh. Hari Ram Tiwari, Pharmacist: besides unbecoming of a council servant, amounts to gross misconduct in the performance of his duties and thus, violated the provision of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
5. Inquiry proceedings were conducted against appellant and by Inquiry Report dated 05th September, 2008, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against appellant stood proved beyond any doubt. Subsequently, order dated 16th December, 2008 was issued on behalf of Chairman of respondent for compulsory retirement of appellant. Thereafter, by office order dated 23rd December, 2008, respondent issued an office order thereby terminating the service of appellant by way of compulsory retirement.
6. An industrial dispute was raised on behalf of appellant praying that he may be reinstated in service as the domestic inquiry conducted by respondent was unfair, unlawful and against the Principles of Natural Justice. Learned Labour Court by its order dated 27th April, 2019 held that the inquiry conducted against appellant could not be said to be fair, proper and in accordance with Principles of Natural Justice.
7. Subsequently, an application was moved on behalf of respondent herein seeking an opportunity to lead evidence before the learned Labour Court to prove charges against appellant. However, by its order/Award dated 12th September, 2019, the learned Labour Court held that respondent could not be granted opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges against appellant after the preliminary issue of domestic inquiry had already been held against respondent. Thus, the punishment of termination of service of appellant by compulsory retire
