Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (SHILLONG BENCH)
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
Amberlight Lyngdoh – Appellants
Vs.
State of Meghalaya and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 01.03.2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including providing the delinquent with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and any violation of these principles can lead to the quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceeding - Meghalaya State Electricity Board - Part-V of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1996 - The court quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the penalty imposed therein due to fundamental defects in the inquiry procedure, violation of the principles of natural justice, and lack of reasonable opportunity of hearing. The court directed the respondents Board to consider the promotion of the petitioner and fix his seniority in accordance with the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer at the Meghalaya State Electricity Board, challenged the legality of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, the order of punishment issued by the Chairman of the Board, and the appellate order. The petitioner also sought payment of salary arrears and consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceeding suffered from fundamental defects, including the violation of the principles of natural justice and the denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings and directed the respondents Board to consider the promotion of the petitioner and fix his seniority in accordance with the rules.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the disciplinary proceeding and the orders of punishment issued against the petitioner, along with the denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing and violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceeding must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including providing the delinquent with an opportunity to know the charges, cross-examine witnesses, and present a defense. The court found that the inquiry procedure suffered from fundamental defects, and the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing, leading to the quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and directed the respondents Board to consider the promotion of the petitioner and fix his seniority in accordance with the rules. The petitioner was not entitled to backwages, and the respondents Board was given three months to complete the exercise.
T. Vaiphei, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him culminating in the order of punishment dated 4.4.2000 issued by the Chairman of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board and the appellate order dated 22.11.2002 and for payment of salary arrears and thereafter to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from the date on which the first of his juniors were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and to fix his seniority accordingly in the post of Executive Engineer.
2. This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. The facts and circumstances leading to the filling of this writ petition may be briefly noted at the very outset. The petitioner is a graduate in Civil Engineering and was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer by the Meghalaya State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") which he joined in May, 1986 whereupon he was posted as Assistant Engineer attached to Civil Division No. 4 of stage IV Project having its Headquarters near Zero Point, Kyrdemkulai, East Khasi Hills District. While working under Civil Division No. 4 of stage IV Project, a disciplinary proceeding was launched against the petitioner by the Board on the following charges:
(i) Negligence of duties and responsibilities by issuing of Gate Pass on 3.8.1989 by around 21:35 hours by Kutcha slip and not in the prescribed form for carriages of cement from store.
(ii) The Gate Pass in the Kutcha slip issued by him did not bear any official number and date or the registration number of the vehicles and the quantity of cement allowed to be carried.
(iii) 200 bags of cement were allowed to be lifted on 3.8.1989 from the Store against the indent which had already expired,
(iv) The Contractor actually lifted 350 bags of cement on 3.8.1989 against kutcha slip issued by him.
3. The Board ultimately issued the charge-sheet, which was received by the petitioner on 7.9.1989. The petitioner submitted his statement of defence on 22.9.1989 denying all the charges. The disciplinary authority after considering the written statement of defence of the petitioner did not find the explanation satisfactory and proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding against him by appointing Shri B. Nongkynrih, Special Officer of the Board as the Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. In the course of inquiry, as many as sixteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the Board. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer held that the charges No. 2 and 4 were conclusively proved against the petitioner. The chairman of the Board accepted the inquiry report and passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service on 21.7.1990, but no formal order of dismissal was issued to that effect. However, the newly appointed Chairman of the Board, after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and other record of the case, issued the order dated 29.7.1994 dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was rejected whereupon the petitioner approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 86(SH) 1995.
4. This Court by the judgment and order dated 9.9.1997 allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of dismissal and directed the respondents Board to re-instate the petitioner to his post. This Court also gave liberty to the respondents-Board to hold fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing of the report of the Inquiry Officer in accordance with law, if so advised. This Court recorded the findings that the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the Inquiry Report in the year 1992 whereas the penalty of dismissal was already imposed by the former chairman of the Board on 21.7.1990 and that the petitioner was accordingly prevented from making effective reply a
