SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 823

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, Sr. Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 evidence and the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.

Headnote:

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

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top