Back
KMC Employee Dismissal Based on Confession Set Aside by
In a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, a Division Bench of the has held that an employee cannot be dismissed from service solely on the basis of a confession made during a , without issuing a and conducting a . The court set aside the dismissal of Sri Rajesh Banerjee, a former Head Assistant of the (KMC), and ordered his reinstatement.
The Road to Dismissal: A Speedy but Procedurally Flawed Process
Rajesh Banerjee was employed as Head Assistant in the IFU, SWM-I, Br.-VIII of the KMC. In May 2015, allegations surfaced regarding misappropriation of municipal funds through fake bills. An was constituted on , to conduct a preliminary fact-finding probe. Five employees, including Banerjee, were asked to appear.
On the very first hearing on , Banerjee submitted a written confession on a non-judicial stamp paper, admitting his involvement in generating and passing supplementary bills against leave encashment in favour of unauthorized persons. He declared himself solely responsible and claimed to have deposited part of the defalcated amount of Rs. 11,84,008/-. The Committee recommended stringent punishment, and on , the Joint Municipal Commissioner (P) dismissed Banerjee from service without issuing any .
Banerjee’s appeal to the Municipal Commissioner was also rejected. When he moved the High Court, the Single Judge upheld the dismissal, reasoning that the made the holding of a regular proceeding a “”.
Arguments: Procedure vs Admission
Before the Division Bench, senior advocate , appearing for Banerjee, argued that the was merely a fact-finding exercise, not a substitute for a . He pointed out that the confession was obtained before the was even formally constituted, suggesting coercion. He highlighted that the KMC’s own Service Regulations and a Circular from mandated the issuance of a , supplying of documents, and an opportunity to the employee to defend himself.
In contrast, KMC’s counsel contended that once the employee had admitted guilt and repaid the money, a formal proceeding would be an . He relied on the principle that demands are not applicable when no prejudice is shown, and courts should not substitute their view for that of the disciplinary authority.
Court’s Verdict: A Cannot Carry a Punishment
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, emphatically rejected the Corporation’s stance. The court drew a clear distinction between a and a .
“The reason behind holding preliminary enquiries for commission of offences, was only to collect the facts, for formation of a, , opinion as to whether the delinquent employee had committed any misconduct. Such enquiries are conducted to ascertain whether the facts which may emerge during such enquiry were sufficient to proceed against the delinquent officer by holding a . On the basis of the findings in a , no order of punishment cannot be imposed.”
The court noted that the KMC’s own Service Regulations () and the clearly laid down the procedure: after a , a must be issued, and only if the employee admits the charges in answer to that could a formal enquiry be dispensed with. Using a prior confession without following this process was a fatal error.
“Thus, in the case in hand, until a was issued and the appellant admitted his guilt in answer to the charges therein, the departmental proceeding could not be done away with, solely on the basis of his admission.”
The bench also pointed out that the Corporation had deviated from its own Vigilance Rules by not referring a case of misappropriation to the , and that the exceeded its mandate by recommending a punishment.
Precedents on Point
The court relied on a catena of judgments to reinforce its reasoning. In , the Apex Court held that a departmental enquiry is not an and that a confession in a previous enquiry cannot be used to deny an employee the opportunity to prove his innocence in a regular proceeding. In , it was held that even a confession must be proved during a departmental proceeding. Further, in , the court clarified that evidence recorded in a cannot be used in a regular enquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and using such evidence would be .
The Final Order: Reinstatement with an Opportunity to Start Afresh
The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge, the dismissal order of , and the appellate order of . It ordered Banerjee’s reinstatement within a week in the same post he held prior to dismissal.
However, the court allowed the KMC to suspend him in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, and directed the disciplinary authority to issue a within two weeks. The appellant will have 15 days to file a written version, and the proceeding must be concluded expeditiously. On the question of back wages, the bench refrained from making any observations, stating that it will be subject to the final outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, given the “peculiar facts” and the existence of the confession as an important piece of evidence.
A subsequent prayer by the KMC for a stay of the judgment was refused by the bench.
This ruling serves as a clear reminder that even in cases of apparent , employers must strictly adhere to the procedure established by law before imposing a major penalty such as dismissal. The judgment underscores that the principles of are not mere formalities but substantive protections for employees facing disciplinary action.
