1998 Supreme(All) 1368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Amarbir Singh Gill and R. P. Nigam, JJ.
P.N.SRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petition 1242 (S/b) Of 1997
Decided On : 12/07/1998

The authorities are required to act fairly in disciplinary enquiries against delinquent employees, as the enquiries are of quasi-judicial nature and principles of natural justice have to be kept in mind.

Headnote:

UP NAGAR ADHIKARI - REVERSION - ENQUIRY - EXTENSION OF TIME - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVAL - CONTEMPT OF COURT: 1. The authorities are required to act fairly in disciplinary enquiries against delinquent employees, as the enquiries are of quasi-judicial nature and principles of natural justice have to be kept in mind. 2. The delinquent official, is required to be afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness and produce the witness in his defence. This is the minimum requirement of principle of natural justice. 3. An enquiry officer is not entitled to collect the material against the delinquent official at his back. 4. The opposite parties had no option but to complete the enquiry within four months. It further implies that in case the opposite parties were unable to do so. they could approach the Court and seek further extension of time. 5. The impugned order dated 18-10. 1997 as contained in Annexure-1a is quashed. The order dated 20. 10. 1997 as contained in annexure-1b posting the petitioner on the post of Sahayak Nagar Adhikari is also quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Up Nagar Adhikari with all consequential benefits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of the opposite parties, was promoted to the post of Sahayak Nagar Adhikari in 1979. In 1989, he was superseded, and he filed a writ petition challenging his supersession. The Court directed the opposite parties to decide the petitioner's representation. However, the opposite parties passed an order stating that since the petitioner's earlier promotion to the post of Sahayak Nagar Adhikari was on an ad hoc basis, he could not be promoted to the next higher post of Up Nagar Adhikari. The petitioner challenged this decision by way of Writ Petition No. 4203 of 1991. The Court passed an interim order directing the opposite parties to consider the petitioner's case for promotion not treating him as an ad hoc promotee and thereafter on 15.10.1992. this Court directed the opposite parties to promote the petitioner forthwith on the post of Up Nagar Adhikari provisionally or on an ad hoc basis and to hold regular selection in two months in which the case of the petitioner shall also be considered. This order was further clarified directing the opposite parties to promote the petitioner within a week's time. This order was challenged by the opposite parties before the Apex Court. However, the order of this Court was not stayed. Instead of complying with the order of this Court, the opposite parties suspended the petitioner and served a charge-sheet on him on 17.11.1992. The petitioner filed a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act against the opposite parties for non-compliance of the order dated 30.10.1992 passed by this Court by which the opposite parties were directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Up Nagar Adhikari. Thereafter, the opposite parties referred the case of the petitioner for consideration to the Departmental Promotion Committee and consequently, the petitioner was promoted on a regular basis by order dated 17.12.1992 as Up Nagar Adhikari. Since the petitioner was promoted, the contempt petition was finally disposed of on 24.2.1993. The opposite parties on the heels of the aforesaid order of this Court passed an order dated 26.2.1993 reverting the petitioner to the post of Sahayak Nagar Adhikari stating that the petitioner was not found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. This order of reversion was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1975 (S/b) of 1993 and his reversion was stayed by an interim order dated 15.3.1993. The opposite parties summoned the petitioner by registered post on 29.4.1993 to appear before the enquiry officer on 30.4.1993. The petitioner was suspended again on 28.5.1994. The petitioner again approached this Court by another writ petition (Writ Petition No. 610 (S/b) of 1994] and by order dated 3.6.1994, operation of the suspension order dated 28.5.1994 was stayed.

Finding of the Court:

1. The opposite parties failed to comply with the directions of this Court as contained in the order dated 27.8.1996 in letter and spirit. 2. No enquiry worth the name was conducted.-No evidence was recorded or produced in the presence of the petitioner. 3. He was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, witnesses named by him were not examined in the enquiry and opposite parties failed to extend the benefit of reasonable opportunity as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution to the petitioner. 4. The enquiry in the circumstances stands vitiated and the impugned order passed on the findings of the enquiry officer cannot stand.

Issues: 1. Whether the opposite parties complied with the directions of the Court as contained in the order dated 27.8.1996? 2. Whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner? 3. Whether the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The authorities are required to act fairly in disciplinary enquiries against delinquent employees, as the enquiries are of quasi-judicial nature and principles of natural justice have to be kept in mind. 2. The delinquent official, is required to be afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness and produce the witness in his defence. This is the minimum requirement of principle of natural justice. 3. An enquiry officer is not entitled to collect the material against the delinquent official at his back. 4. The opposite parties had no option but to complete the enquiry within four months. It further implies that in case the opposite parties were unable to do so. they could approach the Court and seek further extension of time.

Final Decision: The impugned order dated 18-10. 1997 as contained in Annexure-1a is quashed. The order dated 20. 10. 1997 as contained in annexure-1b posting the petitioner on the post of Sahayak Nagar Adhikari is also quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Up Nagar Adhikari with all consequential benefits.