2010 (9) TMI 1075 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant be paid 50% of the wages from the date of removal from service till the date of reaching the age of superannuation and he be granted retiral benefits in accordance with law from the date of his retirement?

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated and conducted by the Commandant.
2. Validity of the punishment imposed on the appellant.
3. Consideration of the appellant's past conduct in the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Disciplinary Proceedings:
The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were initiated by the Commandant, who also appointed his subordinate as the inquiry officer, appeared as a witness to prove the charges, accepted the inquiry report, and passed the order of punishment. The Supreme Court noted that such a course is not permissible in law. The Court emphasized that a person who is a witness in a case cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings nor pass an order of punishment, as per Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. This rule was violated when the Commandant acted as a witness and also passed the order of dismissal.

2. Validity of the Punishment Imposed:
The appellant was initially punished with 10 days of punishment drill for being absent for 25 minutes, which was later enhanced to 10 days of confinement in a cell upon his protest. The Supreme Court found that the initial punishment was unwarranted and illegal, as the absence was bona fide and permissible under Rule 21 of the Guard and Escort Rules. Consequently, the protest against such punishment could not justify the enhancement of the punishment or the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that the disobedience of the enhanced punishment did not warrant the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Commandant.

3. Consideration of the Appellant's Past Conduct:
The Appellate Authority considered the appellant's past conduct, which included several petty punishments and censure entries, to justify the order of dismissal. However, the Supreme Court held that the past conduct of the appellant should have been brought to his notice, either in the charge-sheet or at the stage of the show cause notice, to allow him to make a proper representation. The failure to do so rendered the consideration of past conduct improper and unjustified.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. The Commandant's role as both a witness and the disciplinary authority violated the principle that no person should be a judge in their own cause. This violation rendered the entire disciplinary proceedings void. The Court cited several precedents to support this view, including the legal maxim "nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" (no man shall be a judge in his own cause). The Court concluded that the violation of natural justice was so grave that it could not be cured at the appellate stage, and thus, the order of punishment was null and void.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent order of dismissal were conducted in violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to 50% of the wages from the date of removal till the date of superannuation, along with retiral benefits. The Court emphasized that no fresh inquiry could be initiated as the earlier proceedings were rendered null and void. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →