Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manish Mathur, J.
Rajendra Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
Director General, Council Of Science And Technology U.P& Ors - Respondent
SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16156 of 2020
Decided On : 08-01-2021
Council of Science & Technology, Uttar Pradesh (Service) Regulations, 1989 – Regulations 69, 66, 67, 70, 68, 71 – Punishment Order – Enquiry Report – Charge Sheet – Under challenge is the punishment order, the enquiry report and the charge sheet – A further prayer directing opposite parties to grant consequential benefits upon quashing of the aforesaid orders has also been sought – Counsel submits that while petitioner was working with opposite parties on the post of Artist-cum-Publicity Assistant, he was issued a show cause notice levelling certain allegations – It is submitted that petitioner submitted his reply whereafter the charge sheet was issued to him and upon submission of enquiry report, the impugned punishment order has been passed whereby punishment of censure and reduction of pay to a lower stage in the time-scale has been awarded. – Whether this Court is mandatorily required to refer the dispute to Appeal in view of preliminary objection – Whether the provisions in Regulation 68 of the Service Regulations would be mandatory in nature inasmuch as whether appointing authority is required to first adjudicate upon reply submitted to show cause notice, prior to issuance of charge sheet or not
Finding of the court: It is clear that the provisions of Regulation 68(iv) of the Service Regulations of 1989 have been completely ignored with regard to petitioner and as such the entire proceedings are clearly vitiated on that account. – Even otherwise, it is clear from a perusal of impugned orders that the entire enquiry proceedings have been concluded treating the charges levelled against the delinquent employee to be true only on account of the fact that no reply was submitted by him within the time stipulated. – Such a procedure is totally contrary to the law enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as referred to herein above and clearly are against the principles of natural justice as were required to be followed by the enquiry officer in terms of Regulation 68. – It is clear that the entire proceedings against the petitioner were clearly vitiated for non-compliance of provisions of Regulation 68 of the Service Regulations of 1989. – Writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the punishment order the enquiry report and the charge sheet.
Result: Writ Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
Manish Mathur, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for opposite parties.
2. Under challenge is the punishment order dated 21.07.2020, the enquiry report dated 13.12.2019 and the charge sheet dated 17.06.2019. A further prayer directing opposite parties to grant consequential benefits upon quashing of the aforesaid orders has also been sought.
3. Learned counsel submits that while petitioner was working with opposite parties on the post of Artist-cum-Publicity Assistant, he was issued a show cause notice on 10.04.2019 levelling certain allegations. It is submitted that petitioner submitted his reply on 24.05.2019 whereafter the charge sheet was issued to him and upon submission of enquiry report, the impugned punishment order has been passed whereby punishment of censure and reduction of pay to a lower stage in the time-scale has been awarded.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner is governed by the Council of Science & Technology, Uttar Pradesh (Service) Regulations, 1989 which prescribes the procedure for initiation and conclusion of enquiry. Learned counsel has drawn attention to Regulations 67 onward with Regulation 66 prescribing punishment for misconduct as per Regulation 69. Procedure of enquiry into misconduct is prescribed under Regulation 68 with nature of penalties being indicated in Regulation 70. Provision of appeal has been provided in Regulation 71.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Regulation 68, in case there is any reason to believe that an employee has been guilty of misconduct, it is incumbent upon the employer-authority to order an enquiry to be instituted into his/her conduct whereupon the employee is to be served with a show-cause notice setting forth the nature of misconduct and calling for an explanation. It is submitted that explanation is to be furnished by the employee to enquiry officer who shall submit a report to the appointing authority indicating whether in his opinion the explanation is satisfactory or not. As per clause (iv) of Regulation 68, in case the explanation is found to be unsatisfactory, the appointing authority has occasion either to administer warning to employee or impose censure or direct charges to be framed against the employee whereafter regular departmental enquiry shall ensue.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid provision is mandatory in nature and opposite parties were bound to comply with the same. However, after the explanation submitted by petitioner, it was the enquiry officer and not the appointing authority who had rejected the explanation submitted by petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that Regulation 68 being mandatory in nature, it was incumbent upon appointing authority to have taken decision on the explanation submitted by petitioner and not the enquiry officer. As such, it is submitted that the very initiation of enquiry proceedings against petitioner by issuance of charge sheet without first deciding the explanation submitted by petitioner is dehors the rules and thereby vitiated.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn attention to enquiry report and the punishment order with the submission that the same has been passed without adhering to procedure prescribed as per the service regulations inasmuch as each of the charge has been found proved against petitioner without any application of mind and without considering the evidence merely on the ground that petitioner had not furnished his reply. It is submitted that it is settled law as enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that even in case the delinquent employee fails to submit his reply, it is incumbent upon the employer to enquire into the charges levelled against the delinquent employee, independently. That having not been done, it is submitted, not only the enquiry report but punishment order as well is vitiated on that score as well.
8. Learned counsel for oppos
Point of law: An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are exa....
The court ruled that failure to follow prescribed disciplinary procedures invalidates termination, emphasizing the necessity of fair process in disciplinary actions.
Point of law : Under Rule 66(i) of the Rules of Conduct, if the Bank Management is satisfied that an employee is guilty of misconduct and the same requires initiation of disciplinary action, the deci....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established procedures, including notice and opportunity to defend, to ensure compliance with natural justice.
An enquiry is vitiated if the delinquent employee is not provided with copies of documents relied upon for the charge, and the disciplinary authority cannot impose a major penalty after issuing charg....
The principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to a fair and impartial hearing, must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings against government employees.
The mandatory nature of the procedure under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 in disciplinary proceedings and the requirement to adhere to natural justice principles.
The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including proper approval of chargesheets and the necessity of oral enquiries, to ensure fairness a....
Point of law: Whenever an inquiring authority is to be appointed for conducting enquiry under the said rules, they are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
