IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must comply with principles of natural justice, including the examination of witnesses and the presentation of evidence; failure to do so renders the proceedings and any resultant punishment invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order of punishment dated 21.11.2016, as contained in the Order passed vide Memo No. 3132 (Annexure-14 to this writ application), whereby punishment of “reduction to lowest scale of the cadre” has been awarded to the petitioner passed after conclusion of the departmental proceeding and for a direction upon the respondents to release the entire arrears of salary and the entire consequential benefits, which has been withheld due to the order of punishment dated 21.11.2016

2. Heard Mr. Saurav Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr.S.C.-III, learned counsel for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the order of punishment dated 21.11.2016 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without examining any witness. It is submitted that the Departmental Proceeding has been initiated vide order contained in Memo No. 1393 dated 20.09.2007 (Annexure-4) and Charges were framed against him on 30.8.2007 and which was served upon her on 30.8.2007 and the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is guilty in respect of Charge 1 and 2 without examination of any witness and without proving any document as exhibit.

It is submitted that the departmental proceeding was initiated on the same set of charges, facts and evidences as available in the criminal prosecution pending against the petitioner and therefore, instead of waiting for the final outcome of the criminal case and by forcing the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the respondents have attempted to make the petitioner to disclose her defence, which was to be raised in the criminal proceeding, which is not permissible in the eye of law.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 and judgment passed in the case of Commr. of Police v. Jai Bhagwan reported in (2011) 6 SCC 376.

It is submitted that neither the complainant Tavita Khalkho nor other witness, namely Balkishun Sahu had been examined.

It is submitted that even the D.S.P. has not been examined during the Department Proceeding and merely on the basis of the documents, the enquiry officer has held the petitioner guilty for the charges against her.

It is further submitted that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order of punishment may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to pay the entire arrears of salary to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and devoid of merit. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the petitioner has not availed of the remedy of statutory appeal and the petitioner should have preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner has wrongly stated in Para 35 of the writ petition that she has got no other equally efficacious or alternative remedy but to move before this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner was caught red handed for taking the amount in question and as such, she has been rightly been held guilty by the Enquiry Officer while concluding Departmental Proceeding against her. It is further submitted that the examination of the complainant or any witness in the departmental proceeding is not required. It is further submitted that since the respondent has raised a plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition and as such, detailed counter affidavit has not been filed. It is submitted that there is no violation of the principle