2009 (5) TMI 917 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether filing of an affidavit by a government employee constitutes misconduct under Service Rules.
2. Whether the State Government or district authority can take disciplinary action for filing an affidavit in court without proceedings initiated under Section 195 IPC, 340, and 341 Cr.P.C.
3. Whether a different view taken by the punishing authority without serving a show cause notice or recording reasons is sustainable under law.
4. Whether government employees have the right to file affidavits in court and if so, whether they can face disciplinary action for such actions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of Affidavit as Misconduct:
The court examined whether filing an affidavit by a government employee constitutes misconduct under Service Rules. Rule 3(1) and 3(2) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rule 1956 require government servants to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Rule 8 restricts government servants from giving evidence without prior sanction, except in judicial inquiries. The court held that filing an affidavit in a court does not fall under misconduct unless the court itself records an adverse finding. The court emphasized that assisting the court in dispensation of justice is a duty of every citizen, including government employees.

2. Disciplinary Action Without Court Proceedings:
The court analyzed whether the State Government or district authority could take disciplinary action for filing an affidavit without proceedings initiated under Section 195 IPC, 340, and 341 Cr.P.C. The court referenced statutory provisions and previous judgments, concluding that only the court has the authority to take action for perjury or false evidence. The court held that the disciplinary authority's action was not justified as it usurped the court's power to determine the veracity of the affidavit.

3. Different View by Punishing Authority:
The court considered whether the punishing authority's different view without serving a show cause notice or recording reasons is sustainable under law. The court cited Supreme Court judgments, stating that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry officer's findings, it must record its tentative reasons and provide the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent. The court found that the disciplinary authority failed to do so, rendering the order of punishment violative of the principles of natural justice.

4. Right to File Affidavits:
The court examined whether government employees have the right to file affidavits in court and whether they can face disciplinary action for such actions. The court affirmed that every citizen, including government employees, has the right to assist the court in dispensation of justice. The court held that filing an affidavit or making a statement in court does not constitute misconduct unless the court records an adverse finding.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that filing an affidavit by the petitioners did not constitute misconduct under Service Rules. The disciplinary authority's action was not justified as it failed to follow due process and usurped the court's power. The court quashed the impugned orders of dismissal from service and directed the petitioners to be restored in service with all consequential benefits.

Judgment:
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of dismissal from service were quashed. The petitioners were ordered to be restored in service with all consequential benefits within one month from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.