Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saumitra Dayal Singh, Donadi Ramesh, JJ.
Karamveer Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1141 of 2022
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Atipriya Gautam, Rishabh Kesarwani, Vinod Kumar Mishra.
IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must be based on specific charges; vague allegations violate natural justice and invalidate the proceedings.
Headnote:
Vagueness - Dismissal of Service - Fundamental Rule 55 - The court emphasized the necessity of specific charges in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting that vague charges violate principles of natural justice and hinder the ability to defend oneself, leading to the decision to reinstate the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable, was dismissed from service based on vague charges of misconduct without specific details regarding the date or time of the alleged incident, leading to a lack of a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were vague and indefinite, failing to provide necessary particulars for a proper defense, thus violating Fundamental Rule 55 and principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the charges against the petitioner were sufficiently specific to allow for a fair defense in the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that vague charges do not allow a delinquent to understand the allegations against them, violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the disciplinary proceedings invalid.
Result: The order of the Tribunal is set aside, and the petitioner is reinstated with 50% back wages.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Virendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. The present petition has been filed against the order of the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow dated 23.10.2020 passed in Claim Petition No. 1945 of 2014 (Karamveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others). By that order of the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition and thus confirmed the penalty order dated 12.8.2012, the appeal order dated 27.11.2012 and revisional order dated 12.3.2013. Thus, the penalty of dismissal from service of the petitioner-Constable in the civil police, has been confirmed.
3. Vide charge-sheet dated 1.6.2011, the petitioner was charged with the following misconduct:
4. Alongwith the charge-sheet list of 11 witnesses was disclosed. At the domestic inquiry, those witnesses were examined. However, other than Arvind Kumar Trivedi all witnesses disclosed that they learnt about the occurrence from third persons/other sources. The Circle Officer Arvind Kumar Mishra at whose residence the alleged misconduct was attributed to the petitioner, was not an eye-witness. He supported the charge-sheet on the strength of facts disclosed to him by Rakesh Kumar. In fact the said Circle Officer was not present at the time of occurrence. In his cross-examination Rakesh Kumar clearly stated that he did not remember the date of occurrence.
5. Glaringly, in his examination-in-chief in describing the occurrence Rakesh Kumar, clearly stated that he had run to catch hold of the delinquent as the latter was trying to climb on the stairs leading the residence of the Circle Officer. However, during his cross-examination, he admitted to be not on duty as he had suffered a fracture injury to his leg. The cross-examination statement of the said Rakesh Kumar Trivedi is very relevant. It is quoted as below:
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, in the first place, it cannot be denied that charge levelled against the petitioner was vague. As has been quoted above, it did not specify the date or time of occurrence. Then the evidence led to prove such vague charge was one being that of the Constable-Rakesh Kumar. Besides clearly admitting that he did not remember the date of occurrence, the testimony of the said witness was rendered completely doubtful on the effective cross-examination made by the delinquent. According to the said witness he had run to catch hold of the delinquent as he was climbing the stairs, whereas during his cross-examination he admitted to be recovering from a fracture injury to his leg. Also, no explanation was offered to the delay in reporting the occurrence, after three months.
7. Here it may also be noted that the petitioner was not detained or restrained at the time of occurrence. He was described to have run away from the place of occurrence. Yet the complaint was first made on 25.3.2011 i.e. more than three months after the alleged occurrence in the month of “December, 2010” as disclosed by the solitary eye-witness Rakesh Kumar. There exists no explanation for the delay. The charge of the petitioner being inebriated was never even attempted to be proved.
8. Thus, vitally the charge levelled against the petitioner was wholly vague and such as may have remained incapable of being proven inasmuch as it did not disclose to the petitioner the date or time of occurrence. Unless, that vital disclosure has been first made, the petitioner may never have been expected to set up clear defence to the charge. In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. (1970) 3 SCC 548, the Supreme Court considered the provision of Rule 55 of the Fundamental Rules and laid down not only it was important to give opportunity to the delinquent, during a domestic enquiry proceeding but that such enquiry must be founded on specific charge/s requiring that enquiry. That statutory prescription of Rule 55 of the Fundamental Rules was traced to and founded in the es
