Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
State of U.P. - Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Jain and another - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2001313 of 2015
Decided On : 27-09-2023
Disciplinary Proceedings - Government Servant Conduct - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - The court emphasized the necessity of following due process and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, leading to the remand of the case for a fresh inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a government employee, was punished for unauthorized absence and private employment. He contested the disciplinary proceedings, claiming a lack of due process and opportunity to defend himself, leading to a tribunal's ruling in his favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice, as the respondent was not given a proper opportunity for oral inquiry or cross-examination, thus quashing the punishment order and remanding the case for a fresh inquiry.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the relevant rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that failure to provide a reasonable opportunity for defense and cross-examination in disciplinary proceedings constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating a remand for a fresh inquiry.
Result: The writ petition is allowed; the tribunal's order is set aside, and the matter is remanded for a fresh inquiry.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State authorities/petitioners, challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.8.2014 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the Claim Petition No. 234 of 2012 and quashing the order of punishment dated 23.3.2010 and appellate order dated 22.2.2012, has directed the petitioners/State to decide the matter of salary and other benefits admissible to the respondent No. 1/employee for the period 7.5.2005 to 23.3.2010 in accordance with rules within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
2. The facts of the case, succinctly, stated are that the respondent No. 1/employee was appointed as Punch Operator in the year 1985 and joined as such in the office of Deputy Commissioner (E), Commercial Tax, Moradabad, on 15.6.1985. Apparently, when the respondent No. 1/employee was posted as Computer Operator, he proceeded on Casual Leave w.e.f. 13.10.1999 to 19.11.1999 on account of certain unavoidable family problems and on account of ill health. Thereafter, according to the petitioners/State authorities, he was unauthorizedly absent from duty till the year 2005.
3. It is alleged by the respondent No. 1/employee that although he has joined the duty on 7.5.2005, however, on joining duty on 7.5.2005, no action was taken on his joining and he had been attending the office regularly. According to him, a charge-sheet came to be served on the respondent No. 1/employee only on 28.1.2009, levelling four charges against him, including violation of Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 as he was allegedly found to be working as a Director with Springdale's School, Patel Nagar, Ghaziabad during his employment as a Government Servant and also unauthorized absent from duty from 13.10.1997 to 6.5.2005.
4. On receipt of the charge-sheet dated 28.1.2009, the respondent No. 1 submitted his reply on 18.2.2009, denying all the aforesaid charges so levelled against him.
5. According to the respondent No. 1/employee, after submission of the reply to the charge-sheet on 18.2.2009, the Enquiry Officer had not afforded any opportunity to defend nor fixed any date, time and place for oral enquiry nor had given him any opportunity of cross-examination of the relevant witnesses and as such without conducting proper enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 10.7.2009, recommending that charge Nos. 1 and 2 were proved and charge Nos. 3 and 4 were not proved against the respondent No. 1/employee. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 14.9.2009 alongwith the enquiry report dated 10.7.2009 were issued to the respondent No. 1/employee, to which he submitted his reply dated 9.11.2009. On receipt of the reply dated 9.11.2009, the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment dated 23.3.2010 against the respondent No. 1/employee, whereby he was awarded the punishment of censure and stoppage of two increments permanently.
6. The respondent No. 1/employee, thereafter, preferred a review application, seeking to review the aforesaid punishment order dated 23.3.2010, which was rejected vide order dated 21.9.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1/employee preferred an appeal against the punishment order dated 23.3.2010, which was also rejected vide order dated 22.2.2012.
7. Aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 23.3.2010 and the appellate order dated 22.2.2012, the respondent No. 1/employee preferred Claim Petition No. 234 of 2012 before the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, vide judgment/order dated 21.8.2014, allowed the claim petition partly with the direction as mentioned in paragraph-1 hereinabove. It is this order dated 21.8.2014, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.
8. Heard Shri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the S
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and cross-examination, or they may be deemed invalid.
The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including proper approval of chargesheets and the necessity of oral enquiries, to ensure fairness a....
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 ....
The court emphasized that a departmental inquiry must adhere to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice; failure to do so invalidates the resulting punishment.
The dismissal of an employee without providing the enquiry report and failing to follow principles of natural justice is illegal and warrants reinstatement.
The court established that an oral inquiry is essential in disciplinary proceedings, and its absence violates natural justice, invalidating any resultant punishment.
Service Law – Setting aside of punishment imposed justified - Objective of reasons to be recorded under Rule 9(4) mandatory if not recorded is fatal
Rule 7(vii) provides that where charged government servant denies charges, enquiry officer shall proceed to call witnesses proposed in charge sheet.
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
