2006 (4) TMI 517 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority - Government Servant - Disproportionation to his known source of income - disciplinary proceeding - acts of omission and commission contravened provisions of Rule 3 (1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 - HELD THAT - It was also not a case where the Appellant could be held guilty in the disciplinary proceedings applying the standard of proof as preponderance of the probability as contrasted with the standard of proof in a criminal trial i.e. proof beyond all reasonable doubt. When a final form was filed in favour of the Appellant the CBI even did not find a prima facie case against him. The Disciplinary Authority in the aforementioned peculiar situation was obligated to apply his mind on the materials brought on record by the parties in the light of the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. He should not have relied only on the reasons disclosed by him in his show cause notice which it will bear repetition to state was only tentative in nature. As the Appellate Authority in arriving at his finding laid emphasis on the fact that the Appellant has not filed any objection to the show cause notice; ordinarily this Court would not have exercised its power of judicial review in such a matter but the case in hands appears to be an exceptional one as the Appellant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. He filed a show cause but albeit after some time the said cause was available with the Disciplinary Authority before he issued the order of dismissal. Even if he had prepared the order of dismissal he could have considered the show cause as it did not leave his office by then. We are therefore of the opinion that interest of justice will be sub- served if the Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the show cause filed by the Appellant herein before him. It will be desirable that an opportunity of personal hearing is also given to the appellant herein. We make it clear that although we are setting aside the order of Disciplinary Authority and consequently all other orders we direct that the Appellant shall be deemed to be under suspension till an appropriate order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The question of payment of backwages it is directed would depend upon the ultimate order that may be passed by the Disciplinary Authority. For the views we have taken it is not necessary for us to consider the other contentions raised by Mr. Tripathi. This appeal is allowed to the afore-mentioned extent and the matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made hereinbefore.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not granting the appellant sufficient time to file a representation.
2. Whether the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings was justified.
3. Whether the Disciplinary Authority failed to independently evaluate the evidence before passing the order of dismissal.
4. Whether the valuation of the appellant's assets was correctly assessed.
5. Whether the procedural lapses affected the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that he was not given adequate time to file his representation against the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings. The Disciplinary Authority issued a memorandum on 17.2.1997, and although the appellant requested and was granted extensions, his final request for additional time on 7.4.1997 was denied. The Disciplinary Authority prepared the dismissal order on 8.4.1997, not considering the appellant's memorandum submitted on 10.4.1997. The Supreme Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice required the Disciplinary Authority to consider the appellant's representation before finalizing the decision.

2. Justification of Disciplinary Authority's Disagreement:
The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's exoneration of the appellant, stating that the appellant had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty by acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not provide fresh reasons for the disagreement in the final order, relying instead on the memorandum dated 17.2.1997. The Supreme Court noted that the Disciplinary Authority should have independently evaluated the evidence and provided detailed reasons for the disagreement.

3. Independent Evaluation of Evidence:
The Supreme Court found that the Disciplinary Authority did not conduct an independent evaluation of the evidence. The Disciplinary Authority presumed the appellant's acceptance of the grounds of disagreement due to the absence of a timely show cause. The Court highlighted that the Disciplinary Authority was required to analyze the materials on record afresh, especially since the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant and the CBI had filed a closure report, indicating no prima facie case against the appellant.

4. Valuation of Appellant's Assets:
The appellant argued that the valuation of his residential house by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) at Rs. 2,41,576/- was significantly lower than the valuation by the Executive Engineer appointed by the CBI at Rs. 3,26,000/-. The Supreme Court noted that the difference in valuations was only Rs. 84,426/- and questioned whether this discrepancy justified the conclusion that the appellant possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough and fair evaluation of the evidence.

5. Procedural Lapses and Fairness of Proceedings:
The Supreme Court observed that the procedural lapses, including the denial of adequate time for the appellant to file his representation and the failure to consider the appellant's memorandum before issuing the dismissal order, affected the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings. The Court cited previous judgments, such as Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra and State Bank of India v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, to reinforce the importance of complying with the principles of natural justice and providing the delinquent officer an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and all subsequent orders. The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration, with instructions to evaluate the appellant's show cause and provide an opportunity for personal hearing. The appellant was deemed to be under suspension until an appropriate order was passed, and the question of back wages would depend on the ultimate decision. The Court did not find it necessary to address other contentions raised by the appellant's counsel.