2010 (2) TMI 1050 - SC - Indian Laws

Writ petition of the respondent allowed by HC by quashing and setting aside the order of his removal dated 24.12.2004 and further directing his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The actions of the enquiry officers in preparing the reports ex-parte without supplying the relevant documents has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the respondent. The conclusion is irresistible that the respondent has been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings. The appellants have miserably failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why the documents have not been supplied to the respondent. The Division Bench of the High Court therefore very appropriately set aside the order of removal. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself the inquiry. We therefore have no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of documents to the respondent.
2. Bias and procedural irregularities in the inquiry process.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Validity of the inquiry reports and the resultant disciplinary actions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of documents to the respondent:
The respondent repeatedly requested copies of documents relied upon in the charge sheet, which were essential for preparing his defense. Despite the mandate of Rule 7(5) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, the documents were not supplied. The High Court found this to be a clear violation, as the disciplinary authority is duty-bound to make available all relevant documents to ensure the government servant has an effective opportunity to present his defense. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the documents were crucial for the respondent to make an effective representation against the charges.

2. Bias and procedural irregularities in the inquiry process:
The respondent expressed concerns about the bias of the inquiry officer, leading to a request for a change, which was accepted. However, it was later revealed that the initial inquiry officer had already completed the inquiry report before the new officer took over. The respondent was unaware of this report until much later. The Supreme Court highlighted that the inquiry officers failed to fix any date for the respondent's appearance to answer the charges, violating Rule 7(x). This procedural lapse was significant as it denied the respondent the chance to cross-examine witnesses and rebut the charges effectively.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The High Court concluded that the inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent was not afforded opportunities to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized that departmental inquiries must be conducted fairly, with the inquiry officer acting as an independent adjudicator. The failure to supply documents and the lack of oral evidence examination meant the respondent was condemned unheard, breaching natural justice and fair play principles.

4. Validity of the inquiry reports and the resultant disciplinary actions:
The first inquiry report was deemed vitiated due to the failure to fix a date for the respondent's appearance and the non-examination of witnesses. The second report merely reiterated the first without addressing these procedural flaws. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent was asked to reply to the show cause notice without being supplied the necessary documents, which was unjust. The High Court's decision to set aside the removal order and direct reinstatement with consequential benefits was upheld, as the entire proceedings were conducted in complete violation of natural justice principles.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal. The respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself due to the non-supply of documents and procedural irregularities in the inquiry process. The inquiry reports were invalidated, and the disciplinary actions were set aside, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in departmental inquiries.

← Previous Next →