Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1076
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : ANIL KUMAR AND MRS. REKHA DIKSHIT, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
SATYENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (S/B) No. 6850 of 2016, decided on 30th July, 2018)
Counsel :
C.S.C. for the Petitioners; C.S.C. and Ajey Shanker Tewari for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Disciplinary Proceeding – Punishment – Imposition of punishment of censure entry as well as stoppage of two increments – Legality of – Respondent No. 1 as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax – Tribunal by impugned order dated 5.6.2015 quashed aforesaid punishment order – Challenge against – Every order must contain reasons in support of it and no particular form of recording of reasons is necessary – While passing punishment order dated 5.11.2014, Punishing Authority has discussed each and every charges and by considering material on record as well as reply submitted by respondent No. 1 and has given its own finding on each charges separately – Submission that punishment order is a non-speaking order not tenable – Allegations of mala fide made against any person, then he is to be impleaded by name, otherwise allegations so made cannot be considered – Since person against whom mala fide alleged is not made a party, punishment order cannot be said mala fide – Impugned order of Tribunal set aside. [Paras 15 to 39]
(B) Malice – Connotation of – ‘Malice in fact’ means an action out of personal ill-will etc. – “Malice in law” means when an action is taken without just cause – Person against whom ‘malice in fact’/’malice in law’ is imputed should be impleaded as a party. [Paras 29 to 34]
Result; Petition Allowed.
By the Court.—Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ajey Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged judgment and order dated 5.6.2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (in short 'the Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 1931 of 2014 (Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others).
3. Facts in brief of the present case as submitted by learned State counsel for the petitioners are that the respondent No. 1/claimant filed Claim Petition No. 1931 of 2014 before the Tribunal stating therein that the respondent No. 1 was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Khand-13, Ghaziabad.
4. At the time of posting of respondent No. 1 at Aligarh as Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, II-Unit, Commercial Tax, Aligarh Zone, an incident took place in respect to which a charge-sheet dated 5.3.2012 has been issued to him by which five charges were levelled against him.
5. On 6.8.2012, the respondent No. 1/claimant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. On 29.11.2012, after conducting enquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted his report.
6. On the basis of the inquiry report, the Principal Secretary, Tax Registration Department, U.P., Lucknow/Punishing Authority issued a show-cause notice alongwith inquiry report to the respondent No. 1, submitted his reply.
7. After considering his reply, the Punishing Authority passed the punishment order dated 5.11.2014 awarding punishment of censure entry as well as stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.
8. The punishment order dated 5.11.2014 passed by the Punishing Authority challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 1931 of 2014. After exchange of pleadings the Tribunal allowed the same by impugned order dated 5.6.2015, quashed punishment order dated 5.11.2014 with a direction that the claimant will be entitled to all consequential benefits.
9. Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition with the following finding:
“While going through the record available on the file it becomes clear that the Inquiry Officer proved the charges against the petitioner merely on the basis of conclusion of the verification report prepared under Deputy Collector and the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I Commercial Tax, Agra Zone, Agra. The delinquent officer was not involved in the inquiry. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the show-cause notice but when we go through the punishment order and the explanation submitted by the petitioner against the show-cause notice we find that proper analysis and deliberation was not done by the opp. Parties to assess the role of the petitioner in the episode.
The finding recorded by the Inquiry officer on the relevant charges can be safely termed as irrational. No reasons have been given for recording those findings. The Inquiry Officer has recorded cryptic findings and concluded that the charges are proved without rationalizing those conclusions. Hence, it is a fit case where the Tribunal should interfere.”
10. The said finding given by the Tribunal while setting aside the impugned order of punishment is contrary to the material on record as the inquiry proceeding had been conducted as per principles of natural justice, thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 to which he submitted his reply and after considering his reply, the Punishing Authority has passed impugned order dated 5.11.2014.
11. It is further submitted by him that from perusal of the punishment order, it is clearly established that the Punishing Authority in the said order mentioned all the charges, reply given by the respondent No. 1 and the conclusion of Inquiry Officer on the said charge as per the enquiry report and thereafter discussed each
