Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2112
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, A
Waseem Ahmed Qureshi – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application No.599/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Faheem Shokat Butt
For the Respondents: Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG
Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to a personal hearing and cross-examination of witnesses, failing which the inquiry and resultant penalties are invalid.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956 - Rule 30(viii) and Rule 33 - Dismissal of Prosecuting Officer for alleged misconduct in NDPS cases - Inquiry report found to be flawed for not adhering to procedural safeguards - No personal hearing provided to the applicant - Dismissal order quashed. (Paras 1-29)
(B) Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries - The principles of natural justice must be observed, including the right to a personal hearing and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. (Paras 10-20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Prosecuting Officer, was dismissed based on an inquiry report citing involvement in NDPS cases. He contested the dismissal, arguing procedural violations in the inquiry process, including lack of personal hearing and reliance on unverified evidence. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The court found the inquiry process violated the principles of natural justice, leading to an unjust dismissal. The inquiry officer acted beyond his jurisdiction, and the dismissal order was quashed. (Paras 27-29)
Issues: Whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules and whether the dismissal was justified based on the inquiry findings. (Paras 3-4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a disciplinary inquiry must comply with procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and justice, and failure to do so renders the inquiry and any resultant penalty invalid. (Paras 18-20)
Result: The dismissal order was set aside and quashed, with a directive to consider the outcome of pending criminal trials for potential reinstatement. (Paras 27-28)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought by the applicant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural violations. (Para 3 , 5 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's observations on inquiry process. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 16 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. principle regarding simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings. (Para 18 , 26) |
| 5. conclusion and order regarding the application. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member-J)
1. In the instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the applicant herein has sought following relief: -
“i) Set aside and quash impugned Govt. Order No. 70-Home of 2023 dated 09.02.2023 issued by respondent No. 1 whereby in terms of Rule 30 (viii) of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956 the applicant who was serving as Prosecuting Officer has been illegally and arbitrarily dismissed from service, with immediate effect, which also disqualified him from future employment.
ii) Set aside and quash impugned Inquiry Report submitted by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 bearing No. DFSL/PS/Inquiry Report/2022/356 dated 31.10.2022 which has been held contrary to procedure as laid down in Rule 33 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956.
iii) Direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.
iv) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. That background facts under the cover of which the aforesaid relief is being prayed by the applicant is summarized as follows: -
(i) Vide Govt. Order No.450-Home of 2015 dated 09.10.2015 the applicant was appointed as Prosecuting Officer in terms of Sub Rule (ii) of Rule 3 of Jammu & Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 issued by virtue of SRO 43 of 1994.
(ii) Vide No.Home-Pros/31/2022-08-HOME CC No.182284 dated 08.07.2022 respondent No.1 issued Memorandum whereby the Government proposes to hold an departmental inquiry against the applicant in terms of Rule 33 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956. The substance of misconduct in respect of which inquiry is proposed has been set out in the statement of Article of Charges and a Statement of Imputation in support of the charges forming Annexure-I & II of the Memorandum. The applicant was directed to submit a written statement of his defence to the Home Department within a period of 21 days of the receipt of aforesaid Memorandum and has been also told as to whether he wants personal hearing.
(iii) A bare perusal of the aforesaid Charge Sheet alongwith conjoint reading of Articles of Charge/Statement of Imputation would reveals that there were three charges against the applicant. The first Article of Charge was pertaining to possession of 08 grams of contraband substance by a Police party of Rajouri Police and in this connection an FIR No.230/2020 dated 04.05.2020 U/S 8(a)/21/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 is registered by Police Station, Rajouri. The second Article of charge is that the applicant was arrested on 10.02.2022 by Jammu Police for his involvement in a case FIR No.18/2022 U/S 8/21/22/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered by Police Station Nowabad for possession of contraband substance. The third Article of charge is that after his suspension vide Govt. Order dated 29.05.2020 the applicant failed to report in the office of Deputy Director, Prosecution, Ramban where he was attached w.e.f. 17.10.2021. Thus it is alleged that the applicant has acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity and hence violated Rules 3(1)(i) and (iii) of J&K Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971.
(iv) The applicant on 26.08.2022 submitted his written statement of defence to the Financial Commissioner/Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Govt. of J&K wherein he specifically denied all the allegations as stated in Article-I, II & III
