Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Ajai Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors – Respondent
Writ A No.6602 of 2000
Decided on : 26-08-2022
UP GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1999 - RULE 7(II) - PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - REGULAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CHARGE SHEET - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - MAJOR PENALTIES - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - FAIRNESS - PREJUDICE - QUASHING OF ORDERS - REMAND - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES - NATURAL JUSTICE VIOLATION - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - OPINION FORMATION - REPRESENTATION/REPLY - COMMENTS ON INQUIRY REPORT - PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY MATERIALS - SUPPLY TO EMPLOYEE - NON-JOINDER OF SERVICE - STIPULATION - DISPENSING WITH SERVICE - REGULAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - FINDINGS RELIANCE - CONFRONTATION WITH MATERIALS - HEARING - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Senior Scientific Assistant in temporary capacity, applied for No Objection Certificate to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur. He was appointed in Consolidation Department as Senior Scientific Assistant, Field Unit, Shahjahanpur on 30.11.1996 and handed over charge to one of his subordinates on the same day. He submitted his resignation letter to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur on 30.11.1996. He was required to resume duties on 20.6.1998, but he expressed his reluctance to join in Forensic Science Laboratory. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 23.9.1999 required the petitioner to justify his resignation from service. On 14.1.2000, the respondent No.3 terminated the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders and prayed for issuance of necessary direction to the respondent No.3 to accept the resignation letter dated 30.11.1996 by a formal order w.e.f. 30.11.1996 or in the alternative, for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner's service terminated in pursuance of order dated 14.1.1998, passed by the respondent No.3.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order dated 11.10.2000 was passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and is not sustainable in law. The impugned order was passed relying on the preliminary enquiry report without supplying the same to the petitioner. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his representation/reply on the inquiry report. The opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members on 25.02.2008 was formed without there being benefit of comments of the petitioner on the inquiry report. The petitioner was entitled to point out any defect in the procedure, a defect of substantial nature in appreciation of evidence, any misleading of evidence both oral or documentary. In his representation any inputs and explanation given by the petitioner were also entitled to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority before it embarks with further proceedings as per statutory rules. There was violation of principle of natural justice at the level of Disciplinary Authority when opinion was formed to punish the petitioner with dismissal without forwarding the inquiry report to the petitioner and before obtaining his comments on the inquiry report.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order dated 11.10.2000 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrived at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the petitioner with regard to the charges levelled against him? 3. Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his representation/reply on the inquiry report? 4. Whether the opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members on 25.02.2008 was formed without there being benefit of comments of the petitioner on the inquiry report?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The impugned order dated 11.10.2000 was passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and is not sustainable in law. 2. The petitioner was entitled to a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrived at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the petitioner with regard to the charges levelled against him. 3. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his representation/reply on the inquiry report. 4. The opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members on 25.02.2008 was formed without there being benefit of comments of the petitioner on the inquiry report.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 11.10.2000 was quashed. The respondents were directed to follow the consequential action in pursuance thereof.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order dated 11.10.2000, passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition) with a further prayer for issuance of necessary direction to the respondent No.3 to accept the resignation letter dated 30.11.1996 by a formal order w.e.f. 30.11.1996. It is also prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the alternative, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner's service terminated in pursuance of order dated 14.1.1998, passed by the respondent No.3.
3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Senior Scientific Assistant in temporary capacity on 27.10.1990. The petitioner submitted an application to his appointing authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur for issuance of No Objection Certificate. The said application was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur on 16.7.1996.
4. The petitioner came to know of his appointment in Consolidation Department, where he was posted as Senior Scientific Assistant, Field Unit, Shahjahanpur on 30.11.1996. The petitioner handed over his entire charge to one of his subordinates on the same day. The petitioner submitted his resignation letter to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur on 30.11.1996.
5. The respondent No.3 again required the petitioner to resume his duties on 20.6.1998. The petitioner expressed his reluctance to join in Forensic Science Laboratory. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 23.9.1999 required the petitioner to justify his resignation from service. Thereafter, on 14.1.2000, the respondent No.3 terminated the petitioner from service. On 2.3.2000, the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur intimated the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P. at Lucknow that there was no dues lying against the petitioner, in his office.
6. The respondent No.2 advised the petitioner by letter to resign from consolidation department and to continue under their subordination on 23.9.2000. On 9.8.2000, an order was passed by the High Court, disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 on 16.8.2000. Thereafter, on 24.8.2000, the petitioner submitted a supplementary representation to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.4 submitted his alleged report (enquiry report) on 28.8.2000.
7. The respondent No.2 issued his order dated 11.10.2000, dispensing with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and dismissed him from service, under the provisions of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.3 on 11.10.2000.
8. Assailing the impugned orders, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice as Rule 6 (2) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides that in case there are serious charges against the employee then enquiry by issuing charge sheet is to be initiated. Due to non issuance of charge sheet and non holding of regular enquiry, the impugned order vitiates in law and is liable to be set aside.
9. Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that relying on the preliminary enquiry report, the impugned order has been passed. He submits that law is very much settled that in case the order has been passed on the basis of preliminary enquiry, the order cannot be sustained.
10. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the following judgments :
(ii) Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and another [(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 153]
(iii) Sudesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others [(2005) 11 Supreme
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 ....
Dismissal orders must be passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including providing the employee with a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and supplying a copy of the i....
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
It is a duty of Inquiry Officer to scan entire evidence in order to arrive at a finding after judging case of all the parties, adhering to the principles of natural justice, otherwise, inquiry is vit....
Disciplinary authority must supply enquiry report to employee before forming punishment opinion; failure breaches natural justice without needing prejudice proof; proceedings remanded for compliance.
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
