Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Sandeep Sood - Petitioner
Vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others - Respondents
CWPOA No. 4521 of 2020
Decided On : 19-12-2022
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - PROCEDURE - INQUIRY - DELAY - PENALTY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - REASONS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY - CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965 - RULE 20 - RULE 14 - ARTICLE 311(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Clerk in the office of respondent Corporation, was sent on secondment basis to respondent No.5 in 2003. In 2009, he was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for alleged misconduct and misbehaviour. An inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of two charges out of five. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which rejected the same. The petitioner then approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which permitted him to withdraw the Original Application with liberty to file an appeal to the competent authority. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, who rejected the same. The petitioner then approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which converted the OA into a CWPOA.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were not sustainable in law as the borrowing department failed to inform the parent department before initiating the same, as required under Rule 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The court also held that there was inordinate delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings and in imposing the penalty, which was not justified. The court further held that the penalty of compulsory retirement was not commensurate with the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and was conscious shocking. The court also held that the Disciplinary Authority failed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner before imposing the penalty, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned penalty order and the order passed by the appellate authority and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were sustainable in law? 2. Whether there was inordinate delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings and in imposing the penalty? 3. Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was commensurate with the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner? 4. Whether the Disciplinary Authority failed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner before imposing the penalty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The borrowing department is required to inform the parent department before initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee sent on secondment basis, as per Rule 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 2. Every employer must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year. 3. The penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority should be commensurate with the offence alleged to have been committed by the delinquent employee. 4. The Disciplinary Authority is required to issue a show cause notice to the delinquent employee before imposing a penalty, as per the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned penalty order and the order passed by the appellate authority, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 3.5.2017, passed by Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, whereby an appeal having been filed by the petitioner laying therein challenge to order dated 6.7.2016, passed by Deputy Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Tara Devi, thereby retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service, petitioner approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 3097 of 2018 titled Sandeep Sood v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, which now stands transferred to this court and re- registered as CWPOA No. 4521 of 2020 , praying therein for following reliefs:
II. That respondent corporation may kindly be directed to take back the applicant in service from the date 10.05.2017 with all consequential service benefits.”
2. For having bird’s eye view of the matter, facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner initially was appointed as Clerk-Typist on part time basis with the respondent Corporation on 1.12.1991. In 1995, petitioner was posted in the office of Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Solan, and subsequently brought on contract basis. His services were regularized as clerk in the year 1996 and since then he had been serving in the aforesaid capacity with the respondent Corporation. Vide office order dated 9.9.2003, petitioner was sent on secondment basis to respondent No.5 i.e. Director Transport. Petitioner joined with respondent No.5 on 29.9.2003 at Shimla and continued till 2008 when he was transferred to the office of Regional Transport Officer, Solan. During posting in Regional Transport Officer Solan, with effect from 25.7.2008 to 30.3.2009, petitioner looked after work of maintaining record of Special Road Tax, assessment/compilation of SRT, monthly statements of vehicles, monthly statement of vehicle etc.
3. Since, while rendering work in the office of Regional Transport Officer Solan, certain discrepancies were found in the working of the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure A-1) respondent No.5, who subsequently also ordered for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Vide office order dated 31.10.2009, respondent No.4 issued memorandum alongwith Articles of Charge to the petitioner. (Annexure A-2 and A-3). Petitioner was charge sheeted for following 5 charges as per statement of Articles of Charge:
That the said Sh. Sandeep Sud, while discharging his duties as Clerk, in the office or RTO Solan, has failed to bring the facts regarding penalty due amounting to Rs.3,07,382/- in respect of vehicle No. HP-64-3205 into the knowledge of Supdt./RTO and got the NOC signed and the relevant noting of the concerned file was later on tampered which amounts to misconduct and proves his malafide intention.
ARTICLE-II
Sh. Sandeep Sud, clerk, while discharging his duties in the office of RTO Solan has not deposited 118 No. of Bank drafts on account of SRT amounting to Rs.63.53 Lakh into govt. account received from other State Transport Corporations/Undertakings due to which govt. has suffered a loss of revenue as well as of interest. Out of 118 bank drafts, 83 bank drafts were deposited late in a period of 2 to 6 months amounting to Rs.47.71 lakh and 35 bank drafts amounting to Rs.15.82 lakh were sent for revalidation after the lapse of 10 months, out of which only 4 bank drafts are yet to be received back for credit into govt. account, which shows his careless and irresponsibility towards officials duties causing revenue loss to the state ex-chequer.
ARTICLE-III
Sh. Sandeep Sud, while discharging his duties as Clerk, in the office of RTO Solan has made fake entries of SRT amount in respect of 54 bus
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
The court emphasized that it would not sit in appeal over the findings of the Departmental Authority and would not re-appreciate the evidence which has come before the Departmental Authority. The cou....
In disciplinary proceedings, the authority imposing penalties must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings and allowing the employe....
It is a duty of Inquiry Officer to scan entire evidence in order to arrive at a finding after judging case of all the parties, adhering to the principles of natural justice, otherwise, inquiry is vit....
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the discretionary power of the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and the impo....
A disciplinary authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record independent findings and reasons when rejecting a delinquent employee's representation. Non-compliance with this mandate rende....
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
