IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
SURYA KUMAR KOKATE – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT
W. P. No. 6309 of 2006
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Bias - Departmental Inquiry - 18, 342 - The court found that the departmental inquiry was vitiated due to the appointment of the complainant as the Presenting Officer, leading to bias. The court held that the entire inquiry was prejudiced and quashed the orders of termination.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, was suspended and faced a departmental inquiry based on various charges, including misbehavior with the principal. The petitioner alleged bias due to the appointment of the complainant as the Presenting Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental inquiry was prejudiced due to the appointment of the complainant as the Presenting Officer, leading to bias. The court quashed the orders of termination.
Issues: The main issue was the alleged bias in the departmental inquiry due to the appointment of the complainant as the Presenting Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the departmental inquiry was vitiated due to bias resulting from the appointment of the complainant as the Presenting Officer, leading to prejudice against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of termination and did not award backwages due to lack of evidence of the petitioner's employment status.
ORDER :—
This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief :—
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Upper Division Teacher (UDT) in Pratap Higher Secondary School, Lashkar Gwalior. On the allegation of misbehaviour with the Principal Sarnam Singh, by order dated 12-5-1994 respondent No. 4 placed the petitioner under suspension and also lodged an FIR in the police station. Thereafter, charge-sheet was issued by the respondent No. 4 containing 20 charges. Copy of the charge-sheet has been placed on record. It is the case of the petitioner that charge Nos. 1 to 11 pertains to the years 1974 to 1988. Regarding charge Nos. 12 to 17, no day, date of incident were mentioned in the charge-sheet. So far as charge No. 18 is concerned, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the trial Court and, therefore, charge Nos. 19 and 20 have been levelled in violation of the rules and laws. The petitioner was never supplied with the list of witnesses as well as list of documents. Shri S. D. Sharma, Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Bhind was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Shri Sarnam Singh Yadav (complainant), Principal Pratap Higher Secondary School, Gwalior was appointed as Presenting Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that Sarnam Singh Yadav could not have been appointed as Presenting Officer because not only, he was the complainant, but he has also lodged the FIR against the petitioner. Sarnam Singh Yadav also appeared as a witness in the departmental inquiry, therefore, it is clear that the Presenting Officer, who not only was the complainant but had also appeared as a witness. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the Inquiry Officer supplied the documents and whatever documents were supplied to the petitioner, were totally illegible, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application dated 24-10-1994 to the respondent No. 4 for supply of legible documents. However, again illegible documents were supplied. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 12-12-1994 and submitted that the misconduct already disposed of or waived for any reason cannot be revived. The petitioner denied the charges levelled from Serial Nos. 1 to 17 which were 15 to 18 years old. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer did not provide opportunity of hearing and accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12-12-1994 to the respondent No. 3. He also requested for providing him the defence assistance. The petitioner further made representations to the respondent No. 3 on 13-12-1994 and 21-1-1995 and prayed that on the basis of M.P. Government Gazette dated 18-5-1997, an employer shall not be competent to initiate the proceedings against an employee for major misconduct after one year and for a minor misconduct after six months of its commission and it was prayed that charges Nos. 1 to 18 be deleted from the charges and modified charge-sheet may be provided. The petitioner had also given specific examples of corrupt practices by Inquiry officer and requested to change the same as he was not fair and impartial. The Inquiry Officer Shri Satyadev Sharma was an old friend of Shri Sarnam Singh Yadav, Presenting Officer. He deliberately joined hands
The main legal point established is the principle of bias in departmental inquiries, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and fairness in the appointment of Presenting Officers.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including communication of inquiry reports and provision for cross-examination, to ensure fairness and validity.
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific, clear, and detailed charges in disciplinary proceedings, the prohibition of bias in inquiry proceedings, and the impo....
The principles of natural justice require that no individual can serve as both Enquiry Officer and complainant to ensure fair proceedings.
Disciplinary inquiry vitiated if Disciplinary Authority acts as Enquiry Officer and prosecutor, records adverse witness statements without cross-examination, relies on unfurnished reports, creating r....
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.