IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
Wing Commander Rajesh Kumar Nagar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P., Thru Prin. Secy. Civil Aviation, Lko - Respondent
Service Bench No. 2562 of 2016, Service Bench No. 7624 of 2017
Decided On : 14-07-2021
Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents), Rules 2012 - Rule 3, 11 - Objective of the investigation of accidents and incidents - Petitioner joined the Air Force through N.D.A. as Pilot in Transport Stream - Petitioner was sent on to fly Aircrafts of the State of U.P. on deputation for a period of three years. which was extended for one year more. Later, after premature retirement from Indian Force, the petitioner was given the post of Pilot (Fixed Wing) on contract basis w.e.f. 01.08.2011 and subsequently, he was appointed on the same post on regular basis - Whether the services of an employee on deputation can be terminated by the borrowing department on the allegation of misconduct or negligence during service - Whether unexplained inordinate delay in framing charges would amount to violation of principles of Natural Justice and vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings – Held, it is apparent that the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law and the petitioner was not afforded with the proper opportunity to defend himself and refute the charges efficiently. The enquiry is vitiated and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Not only the proceedings are bad on account of placing of reliance upon the report of preliminary investigating authority but it also appears that authorities had already made up their mind to dismiss the petitioner from service, even before any opportunity was given to petitioner to submit their reply against the conclusions and findings. In such circumstances, the proceedings are vitiated from the stage of submission of enquiry report and all subsequent proceedings including passing of the orders of dismissal from service, therefore, cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed - Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Since both the petitions involve common questions of law and fact and co-relate to same person, therefore, both were connected with each other vide order dated 12.04.2017 rendered in Writ Petition No.7624 (SB) of 2017, hence both have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. The writ petition No.2562 (SB) of 2016 has been filed with the following main prayer(s) :
(b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of PROHIBITION commanding the respondent from passing any order of Major Penalty under second Part of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 and issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the charge-sheets dated 31.03.2014 and 16.05.2014 as contained in Annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition along with any adverse order which may be intended to be passed by the respondent.
(c) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to impose any penalty whatsoever in the light of the averments made in the writ petition.
(d) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to provide full salary, allowances and other emoluments with retrospective effect for the suspension period w.e.f. 04.08.2014 to 13.01.2016 with all consequential benefits and provide full salary for the subsequent period.
Subsequently, the writ petition no. 7624 (SB) of 2017 has been filed with the following main prayers :
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to quash the impugned order dated 25.04.2016 contained at Annexure 1 of the instant writ petition and honourably reinstate the petitioner.
iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to provide full salary, allowances and other emoluments with all consequential benefits i.e. seniority and safeguard of promotional avenues etc.
iv. to award an exemplary cost of five crore rupees on the respondent State of U.P. on account of inflicting mental pain, agony, humiliation, loss of honour, pride, opportunity to the petitioner besides also causing shrinkage of his piloting skill and denting his future prospects of employment in the aviation industry by a farce and misconceived inquiry instituted against him by the respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Air Force through N.D.A. as Pilot in Transport Stream. On 14.01.2008, the petitioner was sent on to fly Aircrafts of the State of U.P. on deputation for a period of three years. which was extended for one year more. Later, after premature retirement from Indian Force, the petitioner was given the post of Pilot (Fixed Wing) on contract basis w.e.f. 01.08.2011 and subsequently, he was appointed on the same post on regular basis w.e.f. 22.12.2011.
4. The backdrop of filing the writ petition No.2562 of 2016 (SB) is that on 22.02.2008, the State Plane King Air C-90A V.T.-UPZ being flown by the petitioner met with an accident at Airstrip of Air Force Station Allahabad. After the investigation the DGCA New Delhi permitted the resumption of flight duties after imparting corrective/additional training.
5. On 31.03.2014, the respondents issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the incident dated 22.02.2008. The petitioner challenged the said charge-sheet by filing the W.P. No. 2562 (S/B) of 2016 (supra). After the i
M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and Others
B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others
State Bank of India and others Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey
Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani
K. Kanagasabapathy Vs. City Supply Officer
State of Punjab and others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal
Union of India vs. Ashok Kacker
State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal and Another
State of U.P. v. Ram Naresh Lal
Employees of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (Private) Ltd. v. The Workmen
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and another
SupremeToday
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses; failure to do so invalidates penalties imposed.
Disciplinary proceedings against government employees must adhere to procedural rules and principles of natural justice; failure to do so, especially with unexplained delays, renders the inquiry inva....
The court emphasized that it would not sit in appeal over the findings of the Departmental Authority and would not re-appreciate the evidence which has come before the Departmental Authority. The cou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a departmental proceeding, the enquiry report should be based on independent findings, not reliant on preliminary reports. The court emphas....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring the accused has the opportunity to contest evidence; reliance on a preliminary inquiry report without proper associatio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.