SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Bharat Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8202 of 2013
Decided On : 24-11-2022




Unauthorized absence from duty and related misconduct proved; the disciplinary process upheld as fair and not in violation of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Staff Regulations of the Corporation - Provisions 123 B(1)(b), (c), (d), (2), 123 C(5), (9), (17), (18), (20), 146, 149 - Disciplinary proceedings - Charge of unauthorized absence and dereliction of duty proved against petitioner; absence without leave for 195 days resulted in grave misconduct - Court affirmed that disciplinary authority provided ample opportunities to the petitioner; absence during critical periods posed threat to safety and security at the farm. (Paras 5, 6, 52, 57)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The absence of a complete response from the charged officer does not equate to a violation of natural justice; the petitioner was provided opportunities to defend himself during the inquiry. (Paras 51, 57)

(C) Onus of Proof - The burden to disprove allegations rested with the petitioner who failed to establish any contrary evidence against the accusations made. (Paras 49, 56)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Administrative Officer, was charged with unauthorized absence from duty since December 27, 2010, and dereliction of duty during a critical agitation period. He was found to be absent without leave for 132 out of 195 days from his posting at Central State Farm, Bahraich.

Findings of Court:
The disciplinary action leading to the petitioner’s removal was justified, given the evidence presented during the inquiry and the critical nature of his role at the farm.

Issues: The core issues involved were whether the charges of unauthorized absence and lack of devotion to duty were substantiated, and whether the procedures observed during disciplinary actions violated principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction and confirmed that the charges against the petitioner were substantiated by evidence, affirming the penalty imposed.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The petitioner Bharat Kumar, vide the present petition, seeks the setting aside of the following:

  • impugned charge memo dated 02.02.2011;
  • the punishment order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority;
  • order dated 29.05.2013 of the Appellate Authority;
  • and order dated 21.10.2013 of the Reviewing Authority;

and seeks directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The respondents arrayed to the petition are the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of State Farms of India Ltd., New Delhi, arrayed as respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 respectively.

3. The Statement of Articles of Charge framed against the Petitioner was in relation to Article of Charge No.1, which was in relation to the petitioner having unauthorizedly absented himself from duty from 27.12.2010 whilst working as an Administrative Officer at the Central State Farm, Bahraich. It has further been stated in the Articles of Charge that it had been reported that the petitioner left the farm on his own will from 27.12.2010 without getting any leave sanctioned from his Competent Authority, and a memorandum dated 14.01.2011 was also issued to the petitioner by the Director, Central State Farm, Bahraich to explain the reason as to why he deliberately left the farm without prior permission and without getting the leave sanctioned, but no reply was received from him till the date of the Memorandum of the Articles of Charge dated 02.02.2011. The said action of the petitioner, as per the Articles of Charge, was in violation of rules and regulations of the Corporation, with it having been stated therein that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Regulation 123 B(l), (b), (c), (d) & (2) and 123 C, (5), (7), (8), (18) and (20) of the Staff Regulations of the Corporation.

4. The Article of Charge No.2 against the petitioner was to the effect that it had been reported that he, the Administrative Officer, Central State Farm, Bahraich, did not take any interest in his work and responsibilities entrusted to him, and that the Management had already taken a decision to close down the Central State Farm, Bahraich which was being opposed in an agitative manner by the farmers and local villagers and their leaders, but the petitioner was not present to protect the interest of Corporation and safety of its employees and property and thus exhibited lack of devotion to duty and also acted in a manner which was against the established norms of official procedures, which tantamount to grave misconduct, and the petitioner had thus, as per the Article of Charge No.2, violated the provision of Regulation No. 123 B(1), (b), (c), 2 and 123 C(5) (6) (9) (18) & 20 of the Staff Regulations of the Corporation.

5. Vide office order dated 07.06.2012 bearing No. PF-1142/2006-GA, in view of the findings of the Inquiry Officer of the petitioner under scrutiny of charges levelled and proved against him, in view of the serious nature of misconducts committed by the petitioner, the Competent Disciplinary Authority concluded to the effect that the petitioner had committed grave and serious nature of misconducts, exhibited lack of devotion to duty, committed flagrant violation of rules and regulations of the Corporation by acting in a deliberate and grossly negligent manner and that his actions were not in the interest of the Corporation. Inter alia, the said order stated that the petitioner kept himself absent from duty without sanctioned leave and without sufficient grounds, and during the period of 195 days (calculated upto January, 2011), the petitioner remained absent for as many as 132 days for one reason or another and was absenting during the crucial period of agitation by the farmers and other local political parties, and as a result of the same, the security and safety of the farm and its personnel was endangered. The Discipli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top