2024 Supreme(All) 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Santosh Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Writ A No. 26538 of 2014
Decided on : 01-04-2024

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a formal inquiry in matters involving the imposition of a major penalty, with the burden of proof on the Establishment to produce evidence, both documentary and oral, particularly witnesses, and the need for the Inquiry Officer to follow the salutary principle governing departmental inquiries.

Headnote:

Inquiry Procedure - Major Penalty - [The petitioner, a Class IV employee, a Peon in the Establishment of the District Treasury, Budaun, is aggrieved by an order dated 31.07.1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun, terminating his services after disciplinary proceedings, and the appellate order dated 13.02.2014, passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, dismissing his departmental appeal and affirming the order of the District Magistrate.] - [Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999, State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236, State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB)(LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB)(LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB)] - The court found that the inquiry held was procedurally flawed and a nullity in the eyes of the law, as the Inquiry Officer did not follow the salutary principle governing departmental inquiries, where the Establishment bears the burden of producing evidence before the Inquiry Officer, both documentary and oral, particularly witnesses, in cases where a major penalty may be imposed. The court highlighted the importance of a formal inquiry in matters involving the imposition of a major penalty and emphasized the need for the Establishment to prove the charges through evidence, which was not done in this case. The court also noted that the inquiry procedure adopted was associated with a preliminary or fact-finding inquiry, not suitable for disciplinary proceedings likely to lead to the imposition of a major penalty. The court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition, deeming the petitioner to be in service until the date of his superannuation in the ordinary course, and leaving it open to the respondents to resume proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, with limitations on the punishment that could be awarded if the petitioner is found guilty.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Class IV employee, a Peon in the Establishment of the District Treasury, Budaun, was aggrieved by an order terminating his services after disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner challenged the order before the court, arguing that the inquiry held was procedurally flawed and a nullity in the eyes of the law.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the inquiry held was procedurally flawed and a nullity in the eyes of the law, as the Inquiry Officer did not follow the salutary principle governing departmental inquiries, where the Establishment bears the burden of producing evidence before the Inquiry Officer, both documentary and oral, particularly witnesses, in cases where a major penalty may be imposed. The court highlighted the importance of a formal inquiry in matters involving the imposition of a major penalty and emphasized the need for the Establishment to prove the charges through evidence, which was not done in this case. The court also noted that the inquiry procedure adopted was associated with a preliminary or fact-finding inquiry, not suitable for disciplinary proceedings likely to lead to the imposition of a major penalty. The court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition, deeming the petitioner to be in service until the date of his superannuation in the ordinary course, and leaving it open to the respondents to resume proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, with limitations on the punishment that could be awarded if the petitioner is found guilty.

Issues: Procedural fairness in the inquiry process, burden of proof on the Establishment, suitability of the inquiry procedure for disciplinary proceedings likely to lead to the imposition of a major penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a formal inquiry in matters involving the imposition of a major penalty and the need for the Establishment to prove the charges through evidence, both documentary and oral, particularly witnesses. The court highlighted the salutary principle governing departmental inquiries and the requirement for the Inquiry Officer to distance himself from the Establishment and convene as an impartial Tribunal, calling upon the Establishment to prove charges by formally producing evidence.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition, deeming the petitioner to be in service until the date of his superannuation in the ordinary course, and leaving it open to the respondents to resume proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, with limitations on the punishment that could be awarded if the petitioner is found guilty.