Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
H.N. Srivastava - Appellant
Vs.
Food Corporation of India - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3975 of 2002
Decided On: 20-01-2020
For the Appellant : Kapil Dev
For the Respondent: A.K. Singh and Kamesh Gupta
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the departmental inquiry should be conducted bona fide, and appropriate oral inquiry has to be conducted before imposing major penalty failing which major penalty cannot be sustained.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Departmental Inquiry - Article 226 - Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op. Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur and another, 2000(1) UPLBEC 541 - The court held that the departmental inquiry should be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. The employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any. The court also emphasized that before imposing major penalty, appropriate oral inquiry has to be conducted failing which major penalty cannot be sustained.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against orders imposing penalty upon the petitioner of reduction in rank from the post of Assistant Manager (D) to Assistant Grade-I (D) for a period of five years with immediate effect. The punishment orders were confirmed in appeal and were under challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental inquiry was not conducted after giving due opportunity of defense to the petitioner. The inquiry report was unreasoned and did not discuss how the charge was found proved against the petitioner. The court held that the inquiry report was not in accordance with the law and the punishment imposed on the petitioner could not be sustained.
Issues: The issues considered by the court were whether the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of defense and whether the Enquiry Officer discussed how the charge was proved against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the departmental inquiry should be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. The employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any. The court also emphasized that before imposing major penalty, appropriate oral inquiry has to be conducted failing which major penalty cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders imposing penalty upon the petitioner were set aside. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits as well as costs.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kapil Dev, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Kamesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondents.
2. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution is directed against orders dated 10.5.2001 and 21.11.2001 imposing penalty upon petitioner of reduction in rank from the post of Assistant Manager (D) to Assistant Grade-I (D) for a period of five years with immediate effect. The punishment orders also show that during period of penalty, pay shall be fixed at the stage from where he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (D) from the post of Assistant Grade-I (D). The order of punishment has been confirmed in appeal vide Appellate Authority's order dated 15.3.2002, and this is also under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was no valid inquiry conducted against petitioner inasmuch Employer examined one S.C. Srivastava as PW-1 and his statement-in-chief was recorded but thereafter he did not appear and this witness was never allowed to be cross-examined by petitioner, hence his evidence could not have been read. Another witness A.U. Khan, Assistant Manager (General) was not relevant to prove the charge. Enquiry Officer himself has relied on statement of S.C. Srivastava to prove the charge against petitioner which evidence could not be relied. He further submitted that documents demanded in defence, which where relied on by Enquiry officer, were never supplied to petitioner, and this fact has been noticed by Enquiry Officer in his report, still he has submitted inquiry report holding charges proved and Disciplinary Authority has proceeded on the basis of this inquiry report, therefore, the entire proceedings are in utter violation of principles of natural justice.
4. The manner in which inquiry has been conducted has been noticed by Enquiry Officer in para 1 where he has given "Introduction" in para-1 of inquiry report and the same reads as under:
"I was appointed as Enquiry Officer in above case vide letter dated 29-5-2000 and Shri Z. Zaffar was appointed as Presenting officer. The P.O. expressed his non-availability for one month due to his preoccupation with dates in other cases. Finally a date for P/H was fixed on 11-7-2000 which was not attended by the CO. The matter was reported to R/O Lucknow with a letter addressed to DM (Vig) dated 11-7-2000. Next date for P/H was fixed for 3-8-2000 which was attended by the P.O. & CO. The proceedings started with the completion of P/H and were again interrupted by non-receipt of documents by the CO. from D.M. Sitapur and non-availability of Sh. S.C. Srivastava DM (Investigation) and PW-1 in his case due to his preoccupation. The PW-1 finally appeared for prosecution on 1-9-2000 and his statement for examination-in-chief was recorded. The CO., however, requested for allowing him cross-examination of PW-1 later as he was not supplied with the required defence documents. It was permitted. Subsequently next date was fixed for hearing on 17-10-2000 at R/O Lucknow. PW-1 Sh. S.C. Srivastava reported being seriously ill and proceeded on long leave. Hearing could not be conducted further. S.R.M. was also informed on non-supply of defence documents by D.M. Sitapur. After ascertaining availability of PW-1 from R.M., R/O Lucknow the next date was fixed on 6-11-2000 and the hearing was concluded on 8-11-2000.
From the above, it is evident that the period of one and half month from 29-9-2000 to 5-11-2000 no hearing could be conducted on account of PW-1's illness and consequent non-availability while a period of one month each hearing had to wait on account of non availability of P.O. and CO. A total gap of 3 months plus had to be wasted on non-availability of vital officials preoccupation. The CO. and P.O. were asked to submit their respective briefs by 20th. The P.O. has submitted his brief in stipulated time while the C.O. has submitted his brief quite late which was received by the un
