Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 62686 of 2014
Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- R.D. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Sri R.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent are present.
2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 05.11.2014 passed by respondent 1, whereby petitioner has been imposed major penalty of withholding three annual increments; holding his integrity doubtful; and that he shall not be posted in the field for two years and also a censure.
3. The petitioner, a Consolidation Officer at Sahjahanpur, was served with a charge sheet dated 31.10.2013 containing 4 charges which read as under.
vkjk si la[;k&1 &
xzke uxfj;k jklk eas pd fuekZ.k ds le; ?kkjs vfu;ferrk;as dh x;hAa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh Lrj ij vkifRr;ka izLrqr gksus ij vki }kjk ljljh rkSj ij vkifRr;kas dks [kkfjt dj] vius nkf;R;kas dk fuoZgu lgh <xa+ ls ugh fd;k x;k] ftlds fy;s vki nks"kh gS rFkk bl d`R; ls vkidh lR;fu"Bk lafnX/k gksrh gSA
Charge No. 1:
Gross irregularities have been committed at the time of Chak Nirman (carving out of chak) at Village Nagariya Rasa. On the objections being submitted to the Consolidation Officer, you, by way of rejecting them in a cursory manner, did not discharge your official obligations properly; for which you are guilty. From this act of yours, your integrity becomes doubtful.
vkjk si la[;k&2 &
xzke uxfj;k jklk eas lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk fofue; vuqikr dk fu/kkZj.k lqpk: :i ls LFky ij tkdj ugha fd;k x;k ftlds pd lhekadu ds le; d`"kdkas eas vlUrks"k gqvkA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs vkidk nkf;Ro Fkk fd vkidks lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk fofue; vuqikr fu/kkZj.k ds i'pkr Lo;a LFky ij tkdj ewY;kadu dh tkap djus ds mijkUr gh fofue; vuqikr ds vuqeksnu dh dk;Zokgh djuh pkfg;s Fkh] ijUrq vki }kjk LFky ij fcuk tk;s gh fofue; vuqikr ds vuqeksnu dk fu/kkZj.k dj fn;k x;k] ftlds fy;s vki nks"kh gSa rFkk bl d`R; ls vkidh lR;fu"Bk Hkh lafnX/k gksrh gSA
Charge No. 2:
The determination of exchange ratio by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was done inappropriately by not visiting the site at Village Nagariya Rasa, which led to dissatisfaction amongst the farmers at the time of chak demarcation. Being a consolidation Officer, it was your duty to initiate approval proceedings only after cross- checking the valuation yourself by visiting the site once the Assistant Consolidation Officer had determined the exchange ratio but the approval for determination of exchange ratio was given by you even without visiting the site; for which you are guilty. From this act of yours, your integrity also becomes doubtful.
vkjk si la[;k&3 &
xzke uxfj;k jklk eas pd vkifRr;kas ds fuLrkj.k ds i'pkr lEcfU/kr d`"kdx.kkas dks tkrs pdcUnh vkdkj i= Hkkx&1 ds pdcUnh vf/kdkjh Lrj ds la'kksf/kr m)j.k le;kof/k ds vUnj d`"kdx.kkasa dks ugh fn;s x;s ftlls vihyh;
U;k;ky; eas fe;kn ds vUnj dkbZs vihy izLrrq ugh dh tk ldh] ftlds fy;s vki nks"kh gSA
Charge No. 3:
After disposal of objections, the revised extracts of the Holding Consolidation Aakar Patra-I at the level of Consolidation Officer were not given to the concerned farmers of Village Nagariya Rasa within the timeline, thereby incapacitating any appeal to have been filed before the appellate court within limitation; for which you are guilty.
vkjk si la[;k&4 &
vki }kjk ikjnf'kZrk cjrrs gq, ljdkjh dk;Z lEikfnr ugha fd;k o Hkz"Vkpkj eas fyIr jgdj dk;Z djus ls d`"kdx.kksa eas vlUrk"s k dh Hkkouk mRiUu gqbZ] rFkk xzke ds dk;Z dks izR;kofrZr djus dh laLrqfr djuh iM+h] ftlds fy;s vki nks"kh gSA
Charge No. 4:
Your not carrying out official work with transparency and being involved in corruption in the said course gave rise resentment amongst the farmers and led to a recommendation for reversion of the village work; for which you are guilty.
4. Petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 28.11.2013 denying the charges. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.05.2014 holding charge-1 fully proved and charges 2 and 4 proved partly. Charge no. 3 was not proved. Thereafter, on 05.08.2014 Disciplinary Authority namely Consolidation Commissioner respondent 2 issued a show cause notice to petitioner annexing therewith a copy of enquiry report. Petitioner submitted his explanation/reply to the said show cause notice dated 11.08.2014 reiterating that charges levelled against him are false and baseless and prayed for personal hearing. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority passed impugned punishment order dated 05.11.2014 imposing the punishment as mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned punishment order is wholly illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice, since no oral inquiry as provided under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant Punishment and Appeal Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1999”) was conducted by Inquiry Officer before submitted report.
6. In para 19 of the writ petition it is pleaded by petitioner that Enquiry Officer without holding oral enquiry had submitted enquiry report on 15.05.2014. The aforesaid averments of writ petition has been replied in para 8 of counter affidavit filed on behalf respondents 2 and 3. It has been stated therein that Enquiry Officer after scrutinizing reply submitted by petitioner, and after going through entire material/evidence available on record, submitted his enquiry report dated 15.05.2014.
7. It is thus clear that on the basis of reply dated 28.11.2013 enquiry report was submitted and no oral inquiry was hold by Inquiry Officer. Therefore, Disciplinary Authority passed impugned order of punishment imposing major penalty without following procedure laid down in Rule 7 of Rules 1999.
8. With regard to holding oral enquiry, law is well settled and this Court may usefully refer a few authorities of Supreme Court and this Court.
9. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Court has held:-
"An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents."
"When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/ removal from service." (emphasis added)
10. Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National
Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 where Court said:-
"Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi- judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi- judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence."
11. This Court also has taken same view earlier in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op. Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur and another, 2000(1) UPLBEC 541 and said:-
"In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge- sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge- sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice."
"In Meenglas Tea Estate v. The workmen., AIR 1963 SC 1719, the Supreme Court observed "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way to cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted".
In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank 1995 Supp.
(3) SCC 212, the Supreme Court set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving the employee an opportunity of cross-examination. In State of U.P. v. C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158, the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to the officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. In Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160, (vide para 66) the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 78 (SC).
Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex-parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348, Uma Shankar v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All)."
12. The above judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-Operative Spinning Mills and others reported 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 wherein Court held:
"In cases where a major punishment proposed to be imposed an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee request, for it or not. For this it is necessary to issue a notice to the employee concerned intimating him date, time and place of the enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541, against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16-8-2000."
13. This Court in Rajesh Prasad Mishra v. Commissioner, Jhansi
Division, Jhansi and others, 2010(1) UPLBEC 216, after a detailed analysis of earlier precedents on subject, observed as under:
"Now coming to the question, what is the effect of non- holding of oral inquiry, I find that, in a case where the inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is mandatory. The charges are not deemed to be proved suo motu merely on account of levelling them by means of the charge sheet unless the same are proved by the department before the inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the turn of delinquent employee to place his defence. Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541.
The question as to whether non holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the entire proceeding or not has also been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in the case of Salahuddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667 and the Court has clearly held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment."
14. In Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 2 ILR 570 (All), also this Court had an occasion to deal with the same issue and held:
"At this stage, we are to observe that in the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent, the department is just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the department to prove the charges which can certainly be proved only by collecting some oral evidence or documentary evidence, in presence and notice charged employee. Even if the department is to rely its own record/document which are already available, then also the enquiry officer by looking into them and by assigning his own reason after analysis, will have to record a finding that hose documents are sufficient enough to prove the charges.
In no case, approach of the Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been submitted, the charge will have to be automatically proved can be approved. This will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly said that disciplinary authority has a right to proceed against delinquent employee in exparte manner but some evidence will have to be collected and justification to sustain the charges will have to be stated in detail. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect."
15. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012(1) UPLBEC 166 (All), a Division Bench of this Court, after survey of law on this issue, said:
"It is well settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541.
A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667 held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment has observed as under:-
"10....... Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case.
11.. A Division Bench of this Court in Subash 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 Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills & others, 2001 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1475 and Laturi Singh Vs U.P.Public Service Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005."
16. Recently, entire law on the subject has been reviewed and reiterated in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs.
Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 and Court has culled out certain principles as under:
"i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.
ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer.
(iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.
(iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any."
17. The principle of law emanating from the above judgments is that initial burden is on the Department to prove the charges. In case where inquiry is initiated with a view to inflict major penalty, department must have prove charges by adducing evidence following the procedure prescribed for holding oral inquiry.
18. Before a major punishment could have been imposed, department has to prove charges against delinquent/employee by examining witnesses and by documentary evidence. In the present case no witness was examined by department neither any one has been examined to prove relied on documents in oral inquiry.
19. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.
20. We may hasten to add that the a above mentioned law is subject to certain exception. When the facts are admitted or no real prejudice has been caused to employee or no other conclusion is possible, in such situation the order shall not be vitiated. Reference may be made to the some of the decision of Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India reported AIR 1984 SC 273; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma reported AIR 1996 SC 1669; and Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. West Bengal reported (2009) 10 SCC 32.
21. When confronted, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the settled legal expositions of law on aforesaid aspects and it also could not be disputed that oral inquiry was not conducted hence major penalty of removal is vitiated in law.
22. In view of above, impugned order dated 05.11.2014 cannot be sustained being in contravention of Rule 7 of Rules 1999 and in violation of principle of nature justice for not holding oral inquiry.
23. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned punishment order dated 05.11.2014 is hereby quashed. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Vikram