Disciplinary inquiries imposing major penalties must record oral evidence; failure to do so violates natural justice, rendering the proceedings invalid.

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal arises from the judgment dated 30th July, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowing the Writ Petition preferred by the respondents and setting aside the judgment dated 5th June, 2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow1, whereby, the Tribunal had allowed the Claim Petition2 preferred by the appellant.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2024.11.18 16:43:51 IST Reason:

1 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘Tribunal’

2 Claim Petition No. 1931 of 2014 Brief facts:-

3. The appellant, while being posted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Khand-13, Ghaziabad faced disciplinary proceedings in furtherance of a charge sheet dated 5th March, 2012. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted an Inquiry Report dated 29th November, 2012. The Disciplinary Authority being the Principal Secretary, Tax Registration Department, Lucknow, U.P., issued a Show Cause Notice accompanied with the Inquiry Report to the appellant. The appellant submitted his reply/objections to the said Show Cause Notice. The Disciplinary Authority, considered the reply of the appellant and issued the Order dated 5th November, 2014, whereby it awarded the punishment of Censure Entry as well as stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect to the appellant.

4. The appellant challenged the order imposing penalty by filing the Claim Petition3 before the Tribunal which allowed the same vide order dated 5th June, 2015; thereby, quashing the order dated 5th November, 2014 and directed that the appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. While allowing the Claim Petition, the Tribunal came to the following conclusions: -

3 Supra note 2.

“ While going through the record available on the file it becomes clear that the Inquiry Officer proved the charges against the petitioner merely, on the basis of conclusion of the verification report prepared under Deputy Collector and the Additional Commissioner, Grade-1, Commercial Tax, Agra Zone, Agra. The delinquent officer was not involved in the inquiry. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the show cause notice but when we go through the punishment order and the explanation submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notice, we find that proper analysis and deliberation was not done by the opp.(sic) parties to assess the role of the petitioner in the episode.

The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the relevant charges can be safely termed as irrational. No reasons have been given for recording those findings. The Inquiry Officer has recorded cryptic findings and concluded that the charges are proved without rationalizing those conclusions.

Hence it is a fit case where the Tribunal should interfere.

We may also add here that this is not a case of procedural irregularity, and we do not propose to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground of procedural irregularity.

….

On the basis of the discussion attempted in the preceding para we are fully convinced that the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary have recorded irrational findings on relevant charges.”

(emphasis supplied)

5. The State/disciplinary authority assailed the order4 passed by the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition5 which was allowed vide judgment dated 30th July, 2018 and the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside thereby reaffirming the order issued by the disciplinary authority which had imposed penalty. The appellant

4 Dated 5th June, 2015.

5 Writ Petition No. 6850(S/B) of 2015

herein has assailed the judgment dated 30th July, 2018 passed by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction by preferring this appeal by special leave.

Submission on behalf the appellant: -

6. Learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross dereliction of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Governmen