The Enquiry Report must be based on clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admission of guilt by the delinquent employee to dispense with the requirement of a proper enquiry. If the admission is ambiguous and conditional, a proper enquiry is mandatory before holding the employee guilty of charges.

JUDGMENT :

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Assailing the correctness and legality of the Final Report dated 21st November 2015 holding the petitioners guilty of the charges and the consequential order dated 11th July 2016, whereby the punishment of reduction of three annual increments to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect was imposed, the instant petition is filed. The petitioners, stated to be working on regular establishment of different departments under the Government in various capacities, were served with memorandum of charge-sheet on 04th February, 2010 alleging that the petitioners have participated in a programme organized by political leaders at Rolu, South Sikkim on 21st December 2009 and as such the same was violative of provisions of Rule 3(i) (c) of the Sikkim Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Conduct Rules”). The petitioners submitted their replies separately on 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-21), 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-22), 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-23), 08.09.2010 (Annexure P-24), 19.03.2016 (Annexure P-25), 10.03.2016 (Annexure P-26), 26.02.2010 (Annexure P-27), 18.02.2010 (Annexure P-28), 03.03.2010 (Annexure P-29), 25.02.2010 (Annexure P-30), 24.02.2010 (Annexure P-31), 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-32), 03.03.2010 (Annexure P-33), dated nil (Annexure P-34), 12.03.2016 (Annexure P-35), dated nil (Annexure P-36), 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-37) and 20.02.2016 (Annexure P-38) respectively. The third respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and recorded the deposition of all the petitioners. Considering the deposition, held the petitioners as guilty on the basis that “there is an admission in his deposition of having met political personalities (MLA, Shri P.S. Golay) who was present at the political gathering, it is amply clear that the Charged Official came there to meet him and therefore, by implication despite his denial it has been proved by his own admission that he met the political personalities”, supported by an intelligence report. The appointing authority, accepting the Enquiry Report, imposed penalty, as aforestated, by impugned order dated 11th July 2016.

2. Mr. Moulik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been held guilty of misconduct of being unbecoming of a Government servant without proving the allegation of charge. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not admitted any misconduct of having participated in a political meeting knowingly with intention. It is further contended that the petitioners have been there as had gone for a picnic on a holiday, when they noticed that there was a meeting, some of the leaders were known to them and as such they met them. The petitioners were not aware that there was a political gathering/meeting. Their presence was neither intentional nor was there any active participation in the meeting. They are not a member of any political party. The Enquiry Officer had held the petitioners guilty after long about five years without examining the allegation made against them. Rule 6 of the Conduct Rules prohibits taking part in politics and election. Note 3 appended to the aforestated Rule clearly provides that attendance at meetings organized by a political party would be construed as contravening if all the three conditions, stated therein, are satisfied, namely, the meeting was a public meeting and not in any sense a private or restricted meeting; the meeting was not held contrary to any prohibitory order or without permission where permission was needed and the Government servant in question does not himself speak at, or take active or prominent part in organizing or conducting the meeting. Even if the petitioners have participated unknowingly, there is no proof that the petitioners had either spoken in the meeting or taken active part in organizing and conducting the meeting. In such view of the matter, it was wrongly held that the pe