Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA, CJ, RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Meenakshi Thakur - Appellant
Versus
Honourable High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 310 of 2024
Decided On : 10-03-2025
(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 15 - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner challenged the order remitting inquiry report for further inquiry without recording reasons - Court held that non-compliance with procedural safeguards vitiates the order - The Disciplinary Authority failed to provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, violating the principles of natural justice. (Paras 10, 12, 20, 21)
(B) Fairness in Administrative Action - The necessity of recording reasons for administrative decisions is essential to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness - The Disciplinary Authority's failure to provide reasons led to prejudice against the petitioner. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Superintendent Grade-II, challenged the Disciplinary Authority's order remitting the inquiry report for further inquiry without providing reasons, which she argued deprived her of her promotion rights. (Paras 1, 2, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Disciplinary Authority did not comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 15, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and directing further proceedings based on the original inquiry report. (Paras 21)
Issues: Whether the Disciplinary Authority could remit the inquiry report for further inquiry without recording reasons, and whether this violated the petitioner's rights. (Paras 8, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for remitting an inquiry report and that failure to do so constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. (Paras 12, 20)
Result: The impugned order dated 20.12.2023 was quashed and set aside, with directions for further proceedings based on the inquiry report dated 22.11.2023. (Paras 21)
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner [Meenakshi Thakur], Superintendent Grade-II, in the office of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief(s) :-
“A. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing impugned order/letter dated 20.12.2023 issued by the Disciplinary Authority remitting the matter to another Inquiry Officer for furtherinquiry and report.
B. That this Hon’ble Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may further be pleased to issue certiorari quashing the memorandum dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-14) whereby Article of Charges were framed against the petitioner.
C. That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue writ of mandamus promoting the petitioner to the post of Chief Administrative Officer from the date due i.e. when her DPC was kept in sealed cover with all consequential benefits.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case of petitioner as set up by Learned Senior Counsel, is that the petitioner joined service as a Clerk-cum-Copyist on 20.02.1991. She was promoted as a Junior Assistant in 1998 and then as Senior Assistant in the year 2007. Petitioner was further promoted as Superintendent Grade-II in the year 2014 and was posted as Reader in the office of Respondent No.2 i.e. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi. The next promotional post of petitioner is that of Chief Administrative Officer and though petitioner became eligible w.e.f. 1.04.2023 but she was not considered for promotion by the respondents:
(i) Learned Senior Counsel submits that on account of alleged absence of one Sh. Purna Nand, an Orderly [Class-IV] on 04.06.2022 at about 4.00 p.m., the authorities issued a show cause notice to the aforesaid employee, who submitted his reply vide Annexures P-1 and P-2. Keeping in view the reply submitted by aforesaid employee, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sundernagar [where posted] sought for an explanation from the petitioner on 08.06.2022 [Annexure P-3], which was responded to by the petitioner on the same day on 08.06.2022 [Annexure P-4], upon which Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, submitted a report dated 10.06.2022 [Annexure P-5] to Respondent No. 2-Disciplinary Authority. Based on the report of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sundernagar dated 10.06.2022 [Annexure P-5], Respondent No 2 sought for an explanation from aforesaid Orderly [Sh. Purna Nand], on 17.06.2022 [Annexure P-6], to which he submitted a response on 30.06.2022 [Annexure P-7].
(ii) Consequently, Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority [Learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi], addressed a communication on 12.07.2022 [Annexure P-8] directing the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sundernagar to conduct a Preliminary -Fact Finding Enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, the Preliminary-Fact Finding was conducted and the Preliminary Report dated 6.9.2022 was submitted to the Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority. Based on Preliminary-Fact Finding Report, the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority addressed a communication to petitioner on 13.09.2022 [Annexure P-10], seeking her explanation. The petitioner submitted her reply on 20.09.2022 [Annexure P-11] and thereafter, on22.09.2022 [Annexure P-12], Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against her and with directions to submit a reply within seven days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her reply on 24.09.2022 [Annexure P-13], denying the averments contained in the show cause notice.
(iii) On 21.10.2022 [Annexure P-14], Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority, issued a Memorandum [referred to as Charge-Sheet], initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules 1965 and with further directions to the petitioner to submit a written statement of defence within 10 days and also to stat
AI
The Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for remitting an inquiry report; failure to do so violates procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice.
Mandatory adherence to procedural rules in disciplinary hearings ensures fairness and due process for the charged official.
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 ....
The Disciplinary Authority cannot order denovo inquiry under Rule 14 and 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, unless there has been no proper inquiry due to serious defects or unavailability of important wit....
The disciplinary authority can remit the case for further enquiry, but a de-novo enquiry is not warranted unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality in the earlier enquiry report.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring clear and reasoned outcomes, though procedural flaws must show substantial prejudice to negate authority findings.
Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed ....
Mandatory violation of Rule 15(2) CCS (CCA) Rules by not serving Disciplinary Authority's tentative disagreement note with favourable inquiry report vitiates proceedings without needing prejudice tes....
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
