Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Central University of Jharkhand, through its Registrar, Ranchi and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Harish Mohan, son of Late Jagdish Prasad Sinha and Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 601 of 2022
Decided On : 16-05-2024
DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - DISMISSAL OF SERVICE - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964; CU Act, 2009; Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the principles of natural justice in the context of departmental enquiries, emphasizing that even in ex-parte proceedings, the inquiry officer must adhere to quasi-judicial standards. The court highlighted the necessity of providing the charged employee with an opportunity to defend themselves and the requirement for documentary evidence to be properly exhibited. The court ultimately found that the dismissal was based on an inquiry that violated these principles, leading to the quashing of the dismissal order and the inquiry report, while also noting that the matter should be remitted for a fresh inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a Deputy Registrar at the Central University of Jharkhand, faced multiple departmental inquiries leading to his dismissal. He challenged the dismissal, arguing that the inquiry violated principles of natural justice as he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The learned Single Judge quashed the dismissal and the inquiry report, prompting the university to appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry was conducted in violation of natural justice principles, as the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself. The court emphasized that the inquiry officer failed to act as a quasi-judicial authority, leading to an unjust dismissal.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the writ petitioner was valid given the alleged violations of natural justice during the departmental inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a public servant cannot be dismissed without a fair inquiry that adheres to principles of natural justice, including the right to present a defense and the proper exhibition of evidence. The court distinguished the case from precedents where the employee had participated in the inquiry.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal order and the inquiry report, remitting the matter for a fresh inquiry to ensure adherence to due process and natural justice.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer :
1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4691 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the enquiry report as also the order of punishment dated 24.10.2018 with a direction to extend all consequential benefits to the writ petitioner immediately.
Facts:
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The writ petitioner was appointed as Deputy Registrar by the Central University of Jharkhand vide CUJ letter no. CUJ/Recruitment Cell/26/2011/5308 dated 18.11.2011 and joined the said post on 15.12.2011.
The writ petitioner came to know that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 (respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein), are the co-accused in a criminal case of sexual harassment lodged by a tribal married Assistant Professor of Human Rights in CUJ, which was registered as SC/ST Police Station Ranchi Case No. 11/17 dated 08.05.2017 which had direct linkage with the writ petitioner. In arbitrary and whimsical manner, the writ petitioner was discharged from services w.e.f. 14.09.2013 vide order dated 16.09.2013.
The writ petitioner challenged the order of discharge by filing W.P.(S) No. 6186 of 2013 which was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2016 by quashing the order of discharge with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner in service. In pursuance of the said direction, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service.
Thereafter, the writ petitioner protested against the constitution of 3rd Executive Council of the Central University of Jharkhand by the respondent no.2 wherein the respondent no.3, namely, Ratan Kumar Deywas appointed as member as the Registrar of the University. On 09.02.2017, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 892 of 2017 for declaring the amended Statute 11 of the Act as ultra vires and consequently to quash the constitution of 2nd and 3rd Executive Council of the University as well as the appointment of respondent no.2 as Vice Chancellor of the University.
Thereafter, respondents stopped the salary of the writ petitioner since December, 2016 and denied the upgradation against which the writ petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2011 of 2017.
Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 23.05.2017 has placed the writ petitioner under suspension which was extended thrice as also the subsistence allowance during the suspension period had not been released. Later, on 21.06.2017, the subsistence allowance was ordered to be released in favour of the writ petitioner. But, respondents did not release the subsistence allowance till July, 2017 and only on 29.07.2017, the same was released.
The departmental enquiry proceeded in which communication were made to the writ petitioner but due to financial stringency the writ petitioner could not respond to the same and vide letter dated 08.09.2017, the writ petitioner was directed to submit written statement of defence against MoC (Memorandum of Charge) dated 24.07.2017 failing which, ex-parte proceeding will be initiated.
The writ petitioner replying the said letter vide letter dated 19.09.2017, denied the allegation enclosing his earlier written reply dated 03.08.2017 and requested to pass speaking order on reply dated 09.08.2017 but no reply had been received by the writ petitioner.
Thereafter, without passing any speaking order, another departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner levelling the charge that the writ petitioner has instigated an Assistant Professor of Human Rights, namely, Mrs. Shilpi Hembrom to lodge FIR against the respondent no.2 and 3 herein.
Thereafter, on 03.04.2018, vide order dated 03.04.2017, the writ petitioner came to know that an enquiry is being held against the writ petitioner appointing an enquiry officer to enquire
The court established that in departmental inquiries, adherence to principles of natural justice is paramount, and failure to provide a fair opportunity to defend oneself can render the inquiry and s....
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 ....
No pay cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, since the petitioner did not attend to work on account of illegal order of suspension and dismissal from service, passed by the appellants h....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, including giving the delinquent officer an opportunity t....
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
