IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Sandeep Kumar Pathak – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 18432 of 2023
Decided On : 20-05-2024
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - SERVICE DISMISSAL - Article 226 of the Constitution, State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh - The court emphasized the necessity for the establishment to prove charges in disciplinary proceedings through both documentary and oral evidence, highlighting the fundamental principles of a fair inquiry. The lack of proper inquiry and evidence led to the quashing of the dismissal order and reinstatement of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Clerk, was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings initiated against him following his father's death. He had been appointed on compassionate grounds and claimed satisfactory work performance. The dismissal stemmed from allegations of unauthorized absence and misconduct during his service, particularly related to his attendance and duties during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner was fundamentally flawed as it lacked proper evidence and did not adhere to the principles of a fair inquiry. The Inquiry Officer failed to produce witnesses or evidence to substantiate the charges, leading to a breach of the petitioner's rights.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and whether the charges were adequately proven by the establishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases involving major penalties, the establishment must prove the charges through a formal inquiry that includes both documentary and oral evidence. The Inquiry Officer must act impartially and cannot assume the charges to be true without evidence.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal order and the appellate order, reinstating the petitioner in service and ordering the payment of his current salary. The issue of arrears was left to the respondents' discretion depending on whether they chose to pursue fresh proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
(J.J. Munir, J.) :
1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow dated 16.06.2023, dismissing the petitioner, a Junior Clerk from service after disciplinary proceedings. Also impugned is an appellate order of the State Government dated 18.09.2023 affirming the Disciplinary Authority.
2. The facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner’s father Bhanu Dutt Pathak was employed as a Cane Supervisor with the Sugarcane Department of the State. He died in harness. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, and after consideration of his candidature, was appointed a Junior Clerk by the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Eastern Region, Gorakhpur, vide his order of the 13th March, 2008. The petitioner joined service immediately and has been rendering it, as he says, steadfastly. The petitioner also asserts that his work and conduct has been satisfactory and no occasion arose for anyone to complain against, either his work or conduct.
3. On 09.01.2022, the Chief Development Officer, Basti issued a communication to the Heads of different departments of the District for sparing two Clerks/Computer Assistant on 10.01.2022 for their presence at, something described by the petitioner, as Integrated Command and Control Centre, Vikas Bhawan, Basti (for short, the ‘ICCC’), in deference to the directions issued by the District Magistrate for the purpose of effective instruction in vaccination details pertaining to the CoViD-19 Omicron Variant. The Senior Cane Development Inspector, by an order dated 10.01.2022, directed the petitioner to be present at the ICCC, Vikas Bhawan. In compliance, the petitioner reported at the ICCC, Vikas Bhawan and discharged all assigned work to him until 26.03.2022. On 26.03.2022, the Chief Development Officer, Basti passed an order to the effect that for the present CoViD-19 was almost not there and proceeded to relieve all the employees attached at the ICCC, Vikas Bhawan for resuming their normal duties. Upon being relieved, the petitioner submitted his joining report before the Senior Cane Development Inspector on 28.03.2022. On 28.03.2022 itself, the Senior Cane Development Inspector also issued orders to the petitioner allocating him work. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties and it was business as usual.
4. On the 5th of April, 2022, the petitioner fell ill. An intimation of the fact was given by the petitioner by an application dated 06.04.2022. The application aforesaid was also accompanied by his medical report and prescription. The petitioner, however, did not regain health immediately and remained under constant medical treatment. In support of the fact, he has placed on record his medical reports and prescriptions of successive dates between 20.04.2022 to 20.06.2022.
5. On 06.05.2022, departmental proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and the District Cane Officer, Gonda was appointed the Inquiry Officer. The aforesaid order was followed by a departmental charge-sheet. Pending the aforesaid proceedings, the Cane Commissioner proceeded to pass an order dated 07.12.2022, placing the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry. The petitioner was in the first instance issued a charge-sheet dated 15.06.2022, carrying four charges. Subsequently, another chargesheet was issued on 22.06.2022 carrying two charges. The petitioner submitted a composite reply to the two charge-sheets dated 15.06.2022 and 22.12.2022, on 11.01.2023, denying the charges and raising pleas in defence. While submitting his reply to the chargesheets, the petitioner requested for an oral hearing. On 13.01.2023, the Inquiry Officer issued a notice fixing 20.01.2023 as the date of hearing. However, information of the aforesaid date was sent to the petitioner on 20.01.2023, which was the date fixed. It is on this account that the petitioner was not able to participate in the scheduled hearing on 20.01.2023.
6. The petitioner made an applicati
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others
State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh
State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Kishori Lal and Another
Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and Another
In disciplinary proceedings involving major penalties, the burden of proof lies with the establishment to substantiate charges through a fair inquiry process that includes the presentation of evidenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to conduct a proper departmental enquiry, especially in cases involving major penalties, violates the principles of natural justic....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper notice and opportunity for defense, especially when imposing major penalties.
In cases involving the imposition of a major penalty, the establishment must prove charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses, and adhere to the principles of natural justice in the domest....
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
A disciplinary inquiry must follow procedural fairness, including the establishment's burden to prove charges through evidence, especially when major penalties are at stake.
A fair inquiry process is essential in disciplinary proceedings, and failure to adhere to procedural requirements can invalidate dismissal orders.
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 produ....
The duty of the establishment to produce witnesses and evidence in departmental inquiries, especially in cases involving a major penalty, and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
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.