Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2280
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Suresh Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary P.W.D. – Respondent
Service Single No. 32680 of 2019
Decided On : 05-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Kaushlendra Tewari, Santosh Kumar Yadav.
The main legal point established is that an order for re-enquiry must be supported by specific reasons as per Rule 9(1) of the Rules 1999, and an inordinate delay in taking a final decision after receiving the enquiry findings vitiates the purpose of re-enquiry. Furthermore, the legal maxim 'SUBLATO FUNDAMENTO CADIT OPUS' was applied to declare the impugned order and the charge sheet as non-est due to their nullity in the eyes of the law.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Authority - Re-enquiry - Rules 1999, Section 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order for re-enquiry and charge sheet issued by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer and faced a departmental enquiry initiated in 2011. The enquiry officer concluded the enquiry in 2012, and the findings were submitted to the disciplinary authority. However, the disciplinary authority took about seven years to decide on re-enquiry, citing that the initial enquiry was conducted in a cursory manner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order for re-enquiry lacked specific reasons as required by Rule 9(1) of the Rules 1999. The court also noted that the delay in taking a final decision after receiving the findings of the enquiry officer was unjustified. Consequently, the court held the impugned order and the charge sheet as non est in the eyes of the law.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the order for re-enquiry without specific reasons, the delay in taking a final decision, and the legality of the charge sheet issued based on the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order for re-enquiry must be supported by specific reasons as per Rule 9(1) of the Rules 1999. The court also emphasized that an inordinate delay in taking a final decision after receiving the enquiry findings vitiates the purpose of re-enquiry. Additionally, the court applied the legal maxim 'SUBLATO FUNDAMENTO CADIT OPUS' to declare the impugned order and the charge sheet as non-est due to their nullity in the eyes of the law.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order for re-enquiry and the charge sheet. Additionally, a writ of mandamus was issued to provide the petitioner with consequential service benefits within three months.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri I.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kaushlendra Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Verma, learned State counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.7.2019 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow directing for re-enquiry against the petitioner appointing enquiry officer. The petitioner has also assailed the charge sheet dated 2.8.2019 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been directed to file defence reply to the charge-sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the petitioner has not filed defence reply to the charge sheet nor the departmental enquiry has been conducted as yet.
4. The question for consideration is that as to whether the disciplinary authority may direct for re-enquiry without assigning reasons in writing in view of Section 9 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1999’).
5. The next question to be considered is as to whether the contention of disciplinary authority that departmental enquiry has been conducted in a cursory manner would suffice and shall be treated sufficient reason in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999.
6. The next question to be considered is that if the disciplinary authority keeps the findings of enquiry officer for substantially long period and thereafter directs for re-enquiry saying the disciplinary enquiry has been conducted in a cursory manner may be permissible in the eyes of law.
7. As to whether the departmental enquiry against an employee may be conducted serving the charge sheet pursuant to the order of re-enquiry being issued by the disciplinary authority, if the very order of re-enquiry is quashed by the Court treating the same as nullity in the eyes of law.
8. All the detailed facts are being shorn off and admitted position is being considered for adjudication of the aforesaid facts.
9. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 23.2.1995 at Construction Division Deoria. On 11.11.2011, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. On 14.12.2011, charge sheet has been provided to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his defence reply to the charge sheet on 9.4.2012. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was conducted strictly in accordance with law. The enquiry officer has concluded the departmental enquiry examining the charge, considering defence reply of the petitioner, appreciating the comments of presenting officer and making thorough analysis of the evidences. The aforesaid departmental enquiry was concluded and the findings of the enquiry officer have been produced before the disciplinary authority on 26.10.2012.
10. Admittedly, since 26.10.2012, no order has been passed by the disciplinary authority till 22.7.2019 when the direction for re-enquiry has been given by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority took about seven years in taking decision that the matter of the petitioner should be re-enquired as the enquiry officer has conducted the departmental enquiry in a cursory manner.
11. Notably, no other reason has been assigned in the impugned office order dated 22.7.2019 directing for re-enquiry of the issue of the petitioner except that the enquiry in the matter of the petitioner has been conducted in a cursory manner.
12. On 28.11.2019, direction has been issued to the State counsel to seek complete instructions in the matter fixing the date for 5.12.2019. On 5.12.2019, the State counsel has produced a letter dated 4.12.2019 preferred by one Sri Sanjai Kumar Upadhyaya, Special Secretary, Government of U.P. addressing to the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The aforesaid letter provides that since the
