High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183022 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13037 of 2023 Petitioner :- Saurabh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh,Prakash Kumar Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- CSC Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Kishan Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Noting the argument advanced previously before this Court, the Court passed the following order on 25.08.2023:
Legal Reasoning
"A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal, however, this preliminary objection has been objected by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the prescribed procedure of Rule 7 read with Rule 9 of the U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been followed while imposing major penalty of withholding one increment with accumulative effect, which penalty is major in nature. Petitioner has not been served with a copy of the inquiry report and show cause notice which according to him is a must in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director of ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar; 1993 (4) SCC 727. Let original records of proceedings be placed before the Court by the next date fixed. List this matter on 21st September, 2023 amongst top 10 cases." 3. Today, the original records have been produced before the Court which I have thoroughly examined. 4. The records show that after the petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.09.2022; he was served with a charge-sheet on 04.10.2022; thereafter, he demanded certain documents from the inquiring authority so as to submit a proper reply to the charge- sheet but since his letters were not responded with positively, he ultimately submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet on 23.01.2023. The Inquiry Officer proceeded to submit report on 24.02.2023 on the basis of documents made available to him by the department as well as the reply submitted by the petitioner. 5. From the perusal of the inquiry report, it transpires that inquiry officer did not fix any date for holding any oral inquiry in the matter, nor did he record oral evidence of even the departmental witness in support of the charge. After he submitted inquiry report dated 24.02.2023, the disciplinary authority straightway proceeded to pass final order of punishment whereby he has withheld one increment of the petitioner with permanent effect.
Decision
6. The grievance of the petitioner raised in the writ petition is that the order impugned dated 24.04.2023 has been passed without supplying the copy of the inquiry report and without giving him any show-cause notice as to the proposed punishment. He submits that the entire disciplinary proceedings was also de horse the procedure prescribed for as three letters written to the inquiry officer remained unreplied in which he required certain documents to be supplied to him so as to enable him to submit proper reply, inasmuch as, no oral inquiry was held as contemplated under the relevant rules namely UP Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999. 7. As I have perused the entire original record produced before the Court and I also did not find that inquiry officer ever proceeded to fix any date in holding for inquiry into the matter, nor did he have any departmental witness to record his statement nor the petitioner was orally examined by the inquiry officer, in my considered view, the rules or procedure prescribed for under the 1999 Rules read with Government order dated 19.07.2022 have been clearly violated. The government order provides for certain guidelines to be followed and that are reproduced hereunder: "1- जहहाሻ ननिययनሹኌ पहधधिकहररी कह यह समहधिहनि हहो जहय नक साሻबाሻधधित कहनमरक कके नविरु्ቍ आरहोप पमहनणित पहए जहनिके पर दरीरर शहससत शहससतयहाሻ भरी अधधिरहोनपत ककी जह सकतरी हह , तहो ननियमहविलरी कके ननियम-7 मम नविनहत पनቅኌयह कह पहलनि नकयह जहनिह चहनहए। 2- नकसरी भरी सरकहररी सकेविक कह ननिलाሻबनि तभरी नकयह जहनिह चहनहए जब सरकहररी सकेविक कके नविरु्ቍ अनभकथनि ( Allegations) इतनिके गम्भरीर हहो नक उनिकके सथहनपत हहो जहनिके ककी दशह मम दरीरर दण्ड कह समयनचत आधिहर हहो सकतह हह। 3. सहमहन्यतयह अपचहररी अधधिकहररी सके दहो सतर ऊपर कह जहाምच अधधिकहररी हहोनिह चहनहए और जहाሻच सके सम्बाሻधधित सथहनि पर तहनिहत अधधिकहररी कहो पदनिहम सके जहाምच अधधिकहररी ननिययሹኌ नकयह जहनिह चहनहए। 4. आरहोप प्ቔ यथहशरी्ቈ ननिगरत नकयह जहय, धजसमम समसत आरहोप सप्ቖ एविाሻ सककेप मम अनभधलधखित हहो। आरहोपहो कके समथरनि मम ऐसके सहቌኚय नदए जहए जहो विहसतनविक रूप सके आरहोपरी कह समथरनि करतके हहो। 5- अपचहररी कहनमरक दहरह यनद अनभलकेखिोመ कके ननिररीकणि ककी अपकेकह ककी जहतरी हहो तहो उसके ननिररीकणि कह अविसर अविश्य पदहनि नकयह जहय। 6- अपचहररी कहनमरक सके अपनिह धलधखित सप्ቖरीकरणि 15 नदनि सके 01 महह कके अन्दर पसतयत करनिके कहो कहह जहय । 7. यनद जहाሻच, पपूविर ननिययनሹኌ कके सथहनि सके साሻबाሻधधित हह तहो अपचहररी सरकहररी सकेविक कहो उस सथहनि पर जहनिके ककी अनियमनत दके दरी जहय, जहहाሻ उसके अनभलकेखि आनद दकेखिनिके हह। 8- जहाሻच अधधिकहररी अपचहररी कहनमरक कहो सहቌኚय कके अन्तगरत नदयके गयके अनभलकेखिोመ ककी सविरीकहयरतह कके साሻबाሻधि मम आपधቈኌ पकट करनिके कह अविसर भरी दकेगह। 9- आरहोनपत सरकहररी सकेविक कहो अपनिह पक पसतयत करनिके कह ययनሹኌययሹኌ अविसर नदयह जहनिह चहनहए। यनद आरहोनपत सरकहररी सकेविक आरहोपोመ सके इन्कहर करतह हह , विहहाም जहाምच अधधिकहररी आरहोप प्ቔ मम पसतहनवित सहनकयोመ (Witnesses) कहो पनतपररीकणि (Cross-Examination) हकेतय बयलह सकतह हह। जहाምच अधधिकहररी उनिकके ममौधखिक सहቌኚयोመ कहो आरहोनपत अधधिकहररी ककी उपससथनत मम अनभधलधखित करकेगह। उपयय रሹኌ सहቌኚयोመ कहो अनभधलधखित करनिके कके पश्चहत जहाምच अधधिकहररी उस ममौधखिक सहቌኚय कहो महगरगह और उसके अनभधलधखित करकेगह धजसके आरहोनपत सरकहररी सकेविक निके अपनिरी पनतरकह मम अपनिके धलधखित कथनि मम पसतयत करनिह चहहह थह। पनतबाሻधि यह हह नक जहाምच अधधिकहररी ऐसके कहरणिोመ सके जहो धलधखित रूप सके अनभधलधखित नकए जहएाሻगके , नकसरी सहकरी कहो बयलहनिके सके इन्कहर कर सकके गह। 10- जहाሻच अधधिकहररी दहरह जहाሻच कके दमौरहनि गविहहोመ कके बयहनि आरहोनपत सरकहररी सकेविक कके समक तथह नविधधिवित शपथ नदलविहनिके कके उपरहन्त धलयह जहनिह चहनहए। 11- जहाምच अधधिकहररी साሻपपूणिर जहाምच ककी कहयरविहहरी मम कक त कहयरविहनहयोመ कह आदकेश प्ቔक (Order Sheet) तहयहर करकेगम धजस पर यथहसमय आरहोनपत अधधिकहररी एविाሻ अन्य सहनकयोመ कके हसतहकर करहएाሻगके। जहाምच आख्यह पसतयत करतके समय जहाምच आख्यह कके सहथ उሹኌ आदकेश प्ቔक कहो साሻल्ሿक कके रूप मम अनियशहसननिक पहधधिकहररी कहो पकेनषित करकेगके। 12- यनद अनियशहसननिक पहधधिकहररी जहाሻच अधधिकहररी ककी आख्यह कके ननिष्कषिቧኘ सके असहमत हह तहो असहमनत कके साሻबाሻधि मम अपनिके ननिष्कषिቧኘ कहो सकहरणि अनभधलधखित करकेगके , तथह अपचहररी कहनमरक सके अपनिके अनभधलधखित ननिष्कषिर पर 02 सपहह कके भरीतर उቈኌर ककी अपकेकह करकेगम। 13- यनद ननिययनሹኌ पहधधिकहररी / अनियशहसननिक पहधधिकहररी शरी रहज्यपहल हह तहो अपचहररी कहनमरक कके नविቈኌरीय उपहशय विहलके सभरी दण्डोመ कके सम्बन्धि मम लहोक सकेविह आयहोग कह परहमशर पहप नकयह जहनिह चहनहए तथह लहोक सकेविह आयहोग कहो अपचहररी कमरचहररी कके समसत अनभलकेखि ननिदशर पप्ቔ कके महध्यम सके भकेजह जहनिह चहनहए। 14- नकसरी नविभहगरीय जहाሻच ककी कहयरविहहरी कके फलसविरूप ननियमहविलरी मम उनቤኌधखित एक सके अधधिक दण्ड नदयके जहनिके कह ननिणिरय धलए जहनिके पर दण्डहदकेश पकथक -पकथक ननिगरत निहीሻ नकयके जहयकेगके। दण्डहदकेश सदहवि सकहरणि एविाሻ सविमयखिररत हहोनिके चहनहए। 15- सकेविह सके हटहनिह अथविह सकेविह सके पदच्ययत नकयके जहनिके कके आदकेश तहत्कहधलक पभहवि सके पभहविरी हहोगके । 16- नविभहगरीय कहयरविहहरी एविाሻ आपरहधधिक महमलके ककी कहयरविहहरी पकथक-पकथक ककी जह सकतरी हह। 17- यनद नविभहगरीय जहाሻच ककी कहयरविहहरी कके लसम्बत रहतके हहए आरहोनपत सरकहररी सकेविक अपनिरी अधधिविषिरतह आयय पहप कर सकेविहननिविकቈኌ हहो जहतह हह तहो लसम्बत जहाሻच कहो सरी 0 एस 0 आर 0 कके अनियच्छकेद-351 ए कके तहत पमशनि ककी कटमौतरी कके धलए जहररी रखिह जह सकतह हह। उሹኌ आशय कह औपचहररक ननिणिरय लकेतके हहए तदनियसहर आदकेश भरी ननिगरत कर नदए जहनिके चहनहए। 18- यनद सकेविहननिविकधቈኌ कके पश्चहतत् कहोई तथ्य सहमनिके आयके तहो सकेविहननिविकनत कके पश्चहतत् भरी सरी 0 एस 0 आर 0 कके अनियच्छकेद-351 ए कके तहत कहयरविहहरी ककी जह सकतरी हह , बशतर धजस रटनिह कके साሻबाሻधि मम जहाሻच पहरम्भ ककी जहय , जहाሻच पहरम्भ करनिके ककी नतधथ कहो उस रटनिह कहो 04 विषिर सके अधधिक समय नि बरीत चयकह हहो। 19- एक रटनिह सके साሻबाሻधधित सभरी अधधिकहररयोመ/ कमरचहररयोመ ककी जहाሻच एक हरी अधधिकहररी सके करहयरी जहनिरी चहनहए। ऐसह जहाምच अधधिकहररी पकरणि मम अाሻतगरसत कहनमरकोመ मम उच्चतम पद धिहरक कके अनियसहर ननिययሹኌ नकयह जहयकेगह।" 8. In such above view of the matter, therefore, the inquiry itself is rendered defected and could not have been relied upon by the disciplinary authority for proceeding further in the matter. 9. In my above view, I find support in the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of UP & ors; 2008 (4) ADJ 58, wherein the Bench has relied upon an earlier division bench judgment in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director & anr, MANU/UP/0757/1999 in which it was held that imposition of penalty in the nature of major penalty without holding inquiry was bad. The said judgment came to be affirmed by Supreme Court in SLP as the SLP against the judgment stood dismissed on 16.08.2000. Citing the aforesaid judgment and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP & anr vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava; 1997 (1) LLJ 831, the Division Bench in the case of Salahuddin Ansari (supra) vide paragraphs 11, 13 and 14, held thus: "11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541, considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills & others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005. 13. The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear that the delinquent employee has a right to defend himself at different stages. When the charge sheet is served upon him, he has a right to submit his reply and in case he does not submit reply, that itself would not amount to admission of guilt or that the charge stand proved. If the allegations are serious and may result in major penalty, the disciplinary authority may appoint Inquiry Officer. Such Inquiry Officer, thereafter would have to fix a date for oral evidence. At this stage the delinquent employee has a right to participate in the oral inquiry, examine witnesses, if produced by the department, and after the evidence of the department is completed, the delinquent employee may produce evidence in his defence. During the course of oral inquiry, the delinquent employee has right to participate at every stage and date and if there is any failure in participation on one or more occasions, the Inquiry Officer cannot deny him participation from the subsequent stage. The delinquent employee can participate at subsequent other stage also. The Inquiry Officer, after completion of oral inquiry, will submit its report after discussing the entire material and if any charge is proved, the disciplinary authority shall supply a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and he would again have a right to submit reply to the inquiry report. 14. Non holding of oral inquiry, therefore, is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment." 10. I do not see this case to be falling in those exceptional cases to negate the opportunity to petitioner at the stage of inquiry. 11. Still further, I find that the disciplinary authority did not issue any show-cause notice of the proposed punishment of withholding of one increment permanently before passing the order impugned. It is well settled law after the Supreme Court judgment and the Constitution Bench judgment in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors vs. B. Karunakar & ors; 1993 (4) SCC 727 that the second show-cause notice is a must before authority proceeds to impose major penalty upon the delinquent employee. The Supreme Court in its judgment vide paragraphs 29 & 30 has held thus: "29. Hence it has to be held that when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has right to receive a copy of the inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. 30. ............(iv) In the view that we have taken, viz., that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the findings recorded in the inquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defence against the charges and is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right, it is only appropriate that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (AIR 1991 SC 471) (supra) should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non-Government, public or private. This will be the case whether there are rules governing the disciplinary proceeding or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject. Whatever the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges levelled against him. Hence question (iv) is answered accordingly. (v) The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non- furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to a "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice." 12. This legal position has been reiterated in H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Mahesh Dahiya; 2017 (1) SCC 768 vide paragraph 26 which is reproduced hereunder: "Present is not a case of not serving the inquiry report before awarding the punishment rather the complaint has been made that before sending the inquiry report to the delinquent officer, Disciplinary Authority has already made up its mind to accept the findings of the inquiry report and decided to award punishment of dismissal. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench on the aforesaid premise came to the conclusion that principle of natural justice have been violated by the Disciplinary Authority. The Division Bench itself was conscious of the issue, as to whether, inquiry is to be quashed from the stage where the Inquiry Officer\Disciplinary Authority has committed fault i.e. from the stage of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules as non-supply of the report. Following observations have been made in the impugned judgment by Division Bench in para 21: “21. Having said so, the core question is – whether the inquiry is to be quashed from the stage where the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority has committed fault, i.e. from the stage of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, i.e. non-supply of inquiry report, findings and other material relied upon by the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to the writ writ petitioner- respondent herein to explain the circumstances, which were made basis for making foundation of inquiry report or is it a case for closure of the inquiry in view of the fact that there is not even a single iota of evidence, prima facie, not to speak of proving by preponderance of probabilities, that the writ petitioner has absented himself willfully and he has disobeyed the directions?" 13. In view of the above, the order impugned is rendered unsustainable. The inquiry report is also rendered illegal as having been submitted de horse the procedure prescribed for. 14. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The inquiry report dated 24.02.2023 is hereby quashed as also the order impugned dated 24.04.2023 is quashed to the extent it imposes major penalty of withholding one increment permanently. 15. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to get a fresh inquiry held in accordance with law with due participation of the petitioner and the disciplinary authority will ensure that this time petitioner is supplied with all requisite documents. A proper oral inquiry will be held thereafter only the disciplinary authority shall proceed in accordance with law. 16. Since, I have quashed the order impugned to the extent of imposition of penalty only, petitioner shall continue to serve in the department and would be receiving salary. However, he will be co- operating in the disciplinary proceedings to be held by the authority, as directed hereinabove. 17. The original records are returned to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Order Date :- 21.9.2023 P Kesari Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad