Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Vijay Shankar Johari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Energy Civil Sectt. Lko And Others – Respondent
Writ A No.5856 of 2022
Decided on : 03-05-2023
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings - State of U.P. & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC 772 - Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India - Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India [(1986) 3 SCC 229 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 502 : (1986) 1 ATC 176] - The Chairman, State Bank of India and Anr. v. M.J. James; (2022) 2 SCC 301
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was dismissed from service based on an audio clip showing illegal demand of money. The inquiry proceedings were conducted without providing the petitioner with the forensic report and the audio clip, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal order was in violation of principles of natural justice and set it aside, directing the respondents to proceed with the matter afresh from the stage of the inquiry after providing the necessary documents to the petitioner.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, non-disclosure of relevant documents, denial of reasonable opportunity, and the effect of non-provision of evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing the accused with all relevant statements and documents to enable them to have a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings. It held that non-disclosure of documents causing potential prejudice would be a denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the termination order was set aside, with the petitioner being permitted to join and paid his salary. The respondents were directed to proceed with the matter afresh from the stage of the inquiry after providing the necessary documents to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.05.2022 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department and subsequently was appointed as an Assistant Engineer at Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and was serving the post of Executive Engineer, Electricity Civil Distribution Division, Lucknow. It is stated that while the petitioner was posted as an Executive Engineer on 01.04.2021, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation that a news was circulated on the News Channel Bharat Samachar in which an audio clip of the petitioner with a contractor was shown which demonstrated that the petitioner was making illegal demand of money. On 22.05.2021, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 08.04.2021 wherein a sole charge was levelled against the petitioner with regard to the telecast on the news channel on 01.04.2021 depicting that the petitioner was talking with a contractor wherein the petitioner was demanding illegal gratification from the said contractor. It was stated that the said act of the petitioner has resulted in lowering the image of the department.
3. The petitioner was given 15 days time to file his reply and to indicate as to whether the petitioner wanted an opportunity of personal hearing. In response to the said charge-sheet, the petitioner sent a letter dated 25.05.2021 requesting the then Executive Engineer to verify from the contractors working in the division with regard to the integrity of the petitioner. The Executive Engineer on 17.06.2021 wrote a letter to the petitioner that 18 contractors/firms working with the division had submitted their views which were also forwarded to the Superintendent Engineer. It is also on record that the contractor, who was shown to be the other person in the audio clip, gave a reply dated 16.06.2021 denying that he had anything to do with the audio clip.
4. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply on 18.06.2021 to the charge-sheet denying the allegations levelled. The disciplinary proceeding was not proceeding further, as such, the petitioner made a request for revocation of suspension. In terms of the charge-sheet, an inquiry committee was constituted and the petitioner made a specific statement that he wanted to be heard. The petitioner participated in the inquiry proceeding.
5. During the course of the inquiry, the petitioner stated that the alleged audio clip has not been provided to the petitioner. It is stated that on 05.01.2022, the petitioner was directed to be present before the inquiry committee on 07.01.2022 for providing his voice sample which was later adjourned and ultimately the voice sample of the petitioner was taken on 13.01.2022.
6. On 11.11.2021, the personal hearing of the petitioner stood concluded and no statement of any witness was recorded. It was the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was neither provided the report of the forensic expert nor the copy of the audio clip based upon which the entire proceedings were initiated. It is one of the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not even supplied the entire inquiry report and only three pages of the said report were supplied, although the inquiry report runs into 117 pages. The inquiry report based upon the said forensic report contained from Page No.96 to 117, concluded that the petitioner was guilty.
7. It is argued that the inquiry report did not even consider the statement of the contractors made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner in his reply against the inquiry report filed on 26.03.2022, requested that a fresh forensic inquiry be done and without considering the said, an order came to be passed on 28.05.2022 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.
8. The petitioner initially filed an appeal, however, he made a statement be
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, including the requirement to provide the accused with al....
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 ....
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-observance of the principle of natural justice, procedural irregularities, and findings based on irrelevant material can vitiate departmen....
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
