An enquiry officer must independently evaluate evidence in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice, even if the charged employee fails to present a defense.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Sri Vikas Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sushil Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 recovery of Rs. 1,12,281.28/- has been directed to be made from the petitioner.

3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for various acts of misconduct. The gravamen of the misconduct in the chargesheet dated 18.02.2016 was that the petitioner was responsible for storage loss in the concerned go-down. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner had failed to tender his defence/reply to the show cause. According to the enquiry report non submission of the reply in itself was sufficient to establish that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and had nothing further to say. On this cryptic basis the enquiry report found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct he was charged with.

4. The impugned order dated 17.03.2017 indicted the petitioner for the storage discrepancies and financial loss entirely on the foot of the said enquiry report. Accordingly he was liable to make good the financial losses suffered by the respondent corporation. The recovery of the said amount was thus ordered to be made from the petitioner by the impugned order.

5. The appellate authority by the order dated 06.03.2019 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

6. The enquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority. The enquiry officer is under the obligation of law to independently examine the evidences adduced by the department and return findings thereupon, even if the delinquent employee fails to tender his defence in the enquiry proceedings. Failure of the charged employee to cooperate in the enquiry or absence of his defence version in the enquiry proceedings does not absolve the enquiry officer of the said duty to appraise the departmental evidence and find whether the charges have been brought home against the delinquent official.

7. The discussion has the benefit of authorities. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 has held as under:

"An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents."

"When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service." (emphasis added)

8. The same view was taken in similar facts in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank , (2009) 2 SCC 570 where the Supreme Court said:-

"Indisputably,