Back
2020 Supreme(Ori) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Biswanath Rath, J.
Sashadhar Pradhan - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 979 of 2008
Decided On : 28-01-2020
Chitta Ranjan Misra, Advocate, G. Misra, Advocate, H.K. Mallik, Advocate, Gyanaloka Mohanty, Advocate
Cases Referred
Bhubaneswar Chhatria Vrs. Union of India and others, (2000) 2 OrissaLR 564
G.S. Srivastav Vrs. Union of India & Ors, (2014) 2 ILR(CUT) 618
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, (1980) 2 SCR 146 : AIR 1980 SC 1896)
Hardwari Lal Vrs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) AIR(SC) 277
Khemi Ram Vrs. The State of Punjab, (1976) AIR(SC) 1737
Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vrs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and others, (1984) AIR(SC) 1805
Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Of India (P) Ltd. vs. Management, (1973) 3 SCR 587 : AIR 1973 SC 1227)
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-examination of vital witnesses and the refusal to conduct a polygraph/voice test violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order of dismissal bad in law.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceeding - CISF Rules, 2001 - Rule 32(1), Schedule-I, Rule-36, Rule-40 of CCS (Pension Rule), 1972
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a delinquent, challenged the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe while working as an Inspector/Exe. under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) during a deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Enquiry Officer's report did not support the charges, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed the penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding by the parent department was valid, but the non-examination of vital witnesses and the refusal to conduct a polygraph/voice test violated the principles of natural justice. The court held that the order of dismissal was bad in law and set it aside, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with full arrears and interest.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, validity of disciplinary proceeding, non-examination of vital witnesses, refusal to conduct polygraph/voice test
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in previous cases to determine that the non-examination of vital witnesses and the refusal to conduct a polygraph/voice test violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order of dismissal bad in law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of dismissal, directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with full arrears and interest, and declared the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority as bad.
JUDGMENT
Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves a challenge by the petitioner, the delinquent to the impugned order under Annexure-8 being passed by the Disciplinary Authority involving a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner.
2. Heard Dr.Chitta Ranjan Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gyanaloka Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4.
3. Short background involving the case of the petitioner is that petitioner was working as an Inspector/Exe. under the Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') bearing Force No.813440019. He was posted in CISF UnitCCWO, Dhanbad was deputed to Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'CBI'), Orissa. After completion of deputation, he was repatriated back to parent department, i.e. CISF. Pursuant to return back to CISF, the Disciplinary Authority, opposite party no.4 issued memorandum of article of charges against the petitioner along with imputation of misconduct vide memorandum dtd.26.02.2005. Following receipt of Memorandum of Article of charges, petitioner submitted his explanation to the authority denying all the allegations claimed to be false and baseless. Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner directed for conducting an enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was conducted involving the petitioner. It is claimed that during enquiry proceeding, petitioner, the delinquent though requested the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority to have the polygraph/voice test of the petitioner to prove his innocence for being falsely implicated by the CBI. Petitioner claims that the Disciplinary Authority unfortunately turned down the request of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the Enquiry Officer after conclusion of enquiry submitted his enquiry report, vide Annexure-5 to the Disciplinary Authority indicating therein that the charges framed against the petitioner have not been proved, however, the Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the report did not agree with the findings and the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly sent a show-cause notice to the petitioner the delinquent along with its disagreement note and also the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer thereby asking the delinquent to submit his response within a period of fifteen days, as appearing at Annexure-6. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the written reply held the delinquent guilty of article of charges as the charged member the delinquent and under the premises in so far as Charge No.1, the delinquent committed gross-misconduct by demanding and accepting bribe being a public servant from a civilian, who was arrested by C.B.I:SPE, Bhubaneswar and remaining under judicial custody. Accordingly, in exercise of power conferred upon him under Rule 32(1) read with Schedule-I and Rule-36 of CISF Rules, 2001 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service with a further direction that the delinquent will be entitled to 80% of pension and gratuity as admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement as per Rule-40 of CCS (Pension Rule), 1972, vide Annexure-8.
4. Being aggrieved by the final order of punishment of the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner preferred appeal, vide Annexure-9. The appeal at the instance of the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 10/11.08.2006, vide Annexure-10. Petitioner accordingly filed revision, vide Annexure-11, as provided under the Service Rules, which was also rejected by the Revisional Authority on 30.03.2007, vide Annexure-12. Assailing the order of the Disciplinary Authority, Dr.Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there has been violation of principal of natural justice involving the disciplinary proceeding involving the petitioner inasmuch as for involvement of consideration of tape recorded evidence is a vital piece of evidence,
