Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.
Kapil Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
versus
Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Devp. Authority Meerut And Another - Respondent
WRIT A No. 15559 of 2019
Decided On : 19-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Alok Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: Bhupeshwar Dayal

Point of law: It is clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 19, 226 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 342 and 353 – Causing hindrance in government work – Misbehaving – To assail correctness of the order dated 18.07.2019 passed in appeal and order passed in review application passed by Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Region Meerut, Meerut Development Authority, District Meerut respondent no.1 and order passed by Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, District Meerut respondent no.2 this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred. – Whether the matter should be remanded back to the respondent authority for holding a proper departmental enquiry or not .
Finding of the court: Bare perusal of record shows that no reason has been given by contesting respondents before passing the impugned punishment order. – Neither evidence was led in presence of the petitioner nor he was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against him or lead his own evidence and, as such, the impugned punishment order is excessive and illegal. – Merely, because the petitioner had taken part in the demonstration, he cannot be dealt with under the Service Rules as petitioner has fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. – It is admitted fact that petitioner's suspension order was revoked, thereafter, the Inquiry Officer again submitted amended Enquiry Report holding that since the suspension order has been revoked, as such, Inquiry Officer drawn conclusion that since no criminal case was lodged against the petitioner, he is guilty only for minor misconduct, thereafter, the Enquiry Officer/Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority submitted his Enquiry Report before the Vice Chairman stating that there is no criminal case lodged against the petitioner. – Neither he misbehaved with the officer nor he shouted slogan and also he did not use any foul language, as such, he is guilty for minor misconduct, but instead of minor punishment, authority concerned passed the impugned order against the petitioner, which would so affect in future service of the petitioner. – It is that before passing the impugned punishment order, no opportunity was accorded to the petitioner to represent himself as it was mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority. – From perusal of record, it transpires that enquiry itself was defective as no independent witness was named in the charge-sheet nor produced during the inquiry proceeding. – Inquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority and it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to supply the copy of enquiry report to the petitioner and non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner to make representation against it, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. – It is clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice. – No regular enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and only on the basis of summary enquiry, the respondent authority has passed the impugned order.
Result: – Writ Petition Allowed

JUDGMENT

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

1. To assail correctness of the order dated 18.07.2019 passed in appeal and order dated 29.08.2019 passed in review application passed by Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Region Meerut, Meerut Development Authority, District Meerut respondent no.1 and order dated 23.06.2018 passed by Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, District Meerut respondent no.2 (Annexure Nos.22, 19 and 14 respectively), this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred.

2. In a nutsell, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk in the office of Meerut Development Authority in the year 1983. On 17.08.2018, one Sri Baijnath posted as Additional Secretary, Meerut Development Authority lodged a complaint (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) in Police Station Meerut at about 11.30 a.m. alleging that when the officers of the authority were busy in meeting, at that time, some of the members of the Meerut Development Authority Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”) entered into the office and started shouting slogan and also misbehaved with the officers, as a result of which, work was hampered about half an hours. On the basis of said complaint, on the same day, first information report was lodged under Sections 342 and 353 of I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut ((Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) for causing hindrance in government work. It is alleged that in the said FIR, the petitioner was not named. In pursuance of the said FIR, the respondent no.2Vice Chairman Meerut Development Authority on 19.06.2017 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) passed an order by which the petitioner was suspended on the ground that in the said incident he was involved. On 21.08.2017, the Enquiry Officer/Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut sent a chargesheet dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) with the charge that petitioner without permission entered into the office of Vice Chairman and started shouting slogans and misbehaved with senior official and also caused hindrance in official work, and as such, violates the rules provided under U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. Copy of charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21.08.2017 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition). As a consequence, the petitioner has filed his reply on 21.08.2017 before Inquiry Officer/Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. The Inquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report on 23.09.2017 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) in which no credible evidence was found against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Vice Chairman rejected the Enquiry Report on 28.09.2017 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) with the direction to the Inquiry Officer to issue a fresh charge sheet alongwith evidence. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer issued amended charge sheet on 17.10.2017 containing two charges (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition). Against the amended charge sheet, on the same day i.e. on 17.10.2017, the petitioner has filed his reply (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition). Upon reply submitted by the petitioner, the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority passed the order dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) by which the suspension order dated 19.06.2017 was revoked with the direction the the departmental enquiry will continue.

3. It is further alleged that when suspension order was revoked, the Inquiry Officer again submitted amended Enquiry Report dated 28.09.2017 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition) holding that since the suspension order has been revoked, as such, Inquiry Officer drawn conclusion that since no criminal case was lodged against the petitioner, he is guilty only for minor misconduct. The Enquiry Officer/Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority submitted his enquiry report before the Vice Chairman on 20.06.2019 (Annexure No.13 to the writ petition) stating that suspension of the petitione