Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Brijendra Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
U.P.Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank And 2 ors – Respondents
Writ A No. 6907 of 2004
Decided on : 10-04-2023
Retirement of an employee - disciplinary proceeding - Release post retiral benefits - Prayed for direction commanding respondents to release all post retiral benefits to petitioner, admissible to him as per law – Petitioner retired from service and therefore, there is no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after his retirement. [Para 23]
Finding of the Court: Enquiry officer prepared enquiry report without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner and without giving him any opportunity to prove his innocence by means of various documents as also to cross examine witnesses which were sought to be relied upon in support of charges - Even reply submitted by petitioner has not been considered by respondent before passing impugned order - Rules of natural justice require that a party must be given opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that evidence of opposite party should be taken in his presence and that he should be given opportunity of cross-examining witnesses examined by that party - It is admitted position that petitioner retired from service and therefore, there is no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after his retirement nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits - Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of case as also fact that after retirement of an employee, no disciplinary proceeding can be continued order is quashed.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri D.K. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.9.2004 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release all post retiral benefits to the petitioner, admissible to him as per law.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1969 as Accountant in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank'), joined the said post and continued to work on the post and thereafter, from time to time he was transferred at various places. In the year 1973, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Field Officer. Since 1973, the petitioner is continuously working on the post of Field Officer and at the relevant time the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while working on the post of Officiating Manager in the aforesaid Bank at Jhinjhak Branch. The petitioner worked in the said Branch as officiating Manager from June, 2003 to January, 2004.
While working at Jhinjhak Branch, it is said that certain irregularities were deducted against the petitioner on which the petitioner had been placed under suspension inter alia on frivolous charges vide order dated 14.5.2004. After passing of the suspension order, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 25.6.2004 which was received by the petitioner on 9.7.2004. The charge-sheet contained six charges. With every charges certain amount of evidence in the form of documentary evidence was also mentioned in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet inter-alia stated six charges with respect to various irregularities being committed by the petitioner.
The petitioner was asked to give reply to the said charge-sheet latest by 10.7.2004 although the petitioner received the charge sheet on 9.7.2004. The petitioner by means of letter dated 12.7.2004 demanded time from the respondents for inspecting the documents which were relevant and genuinely needed for submitting an effective reply in order to establish his innocence. The documents of various nature were voluminous also and the petitioner also wanted to see various objections raised by the Jhinjhak Branch for justification of alleged charges and to what extent the petitioner was liable and reasonable in the matter.
By means of letter dated 14.7.2004, the petitioner was informed that he was being supplied Annexures 2,3 and 4 of the preliminary report of the Regional Manager and in addition thereto the petitioner was asked to inspect the documents at Jhinjhak Branch and to obtain the certified copies of the required documents and after doing all this exercise the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the chargesheet latest by 25.7.2004.
Although the time was granted to the petitioner to inspect the documents by means of letter dated 14.7.2004 and the said permission was granted in pursuance of the letter of the petitioner dated 12.7.2004 and knowingfully well that the documents are to be supplied to the petitioner and that the petitioner has also not filed reply to the charge sheet uptil now and had demanded time for missing documents alongwith the charge sheet, the Bank proceeded to fix the date for personal hearing and for cross examination by the petitioner by means of letter dated 13.7.204.
In the said letter the date for personal hearing and examination and cross examination was fixed as 28.7.2004 but this letter dated 13.7.2004 was never conveyed to the petitioner at any point of time and false averment has been made in the dismissal order to the said effect that the said letter was shown to the petitioner on 14.7.2004 and that he refused to receive the same. The above averment has been made in the dismissal order onl
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed must be proportionate and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the failure to supply relevant docu....
The court established that an employee must be given a chance to respond to an enquiry officer's findings before a disciplinary authority makes a decision, as a matter of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in disciplinary proceedings, including providing a fair opportunity for the accused to def....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of dues from a retired employee and the continuation of a departmental enquiry after retirement must be in accordance with the ap....
Disciplinary proceedings vitiate if an inquiry is conducted without serving proper notice to the delinquent, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses and failing to furnish a copy of the inquiry ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of natural justice in the termination of the petitioner's service, particularly in relation to charge no.8, and the court's decision ....
Intentional avoidance of participation in enquiry proceedings waives the plea of natural justice and estops the petitioner from questioning the non-compliance of natural justice.
The dismissal of the petitioner was set aside due to procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice, entitling him to retiral benefits.
The court affirmed that the burden of proving actual prejudice from non-supplied documents lies with the petitioner, and mere allegations of procedural irregularity do not invalidate disciplinary pro....
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
