9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of considering un-communicated adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for imposing punishment. 2. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal from service. 3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Considering Un-communicated Adverse Remarks in ACRs: The appellant contended that the punishment of dismissal was vitiated due to the consideration of un-communicated adverse remarks in his ACRs. The Supreme Court referred to the judgment in State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, which established that a government servant must be informed of adverse remarks and given an opportunity to explain them before they are considered for imposing punishment. The Court emphasized that the appellant was prejudiced because he was not informed about the adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs for the years 1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991, and 1996-1997. The appellant could not represent against these remarks, which might have influenced the decision to recommend his dismissal. 2. Proportionality of the Punishment: The Division Bench of the High Court found that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved against the appellant. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the most serious charge (being intoxicated and misbehaving with an accused and constable) was not proved. The remaining charges-leaving the headquarters without permission and using derogatory language-were not severe enough to warrant dismissal. The Court highlighted that the appellant had a good ACR for the year 2002-2003, which was not considered by the High Court. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the quantum of punishment, taking into account both good and adverse records. 3. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice: The Supreme Court underscored the fundamental principle that no one can be condemned unheard. The appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the adverse remarks in his ACRs, violating the rule of audi alteram partem. The Court reiterated that the disciplinary authority must disclose the material sought to be used against the employee and provide an opportunity to explain. The failure to do so in this case resulted in serious prejudice to the appellant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. It directed the High Court of Jharkhand to reconsider the issue of quantum of punishment afresh and make a fresh recommendation to the State Government. If the High Court still considers the adverse remarks in the ACRs, it must communicate these remarks to the appellant and allow him to make a representation. The State Government is to pass an appropriate order within three months of receiving the fresh recommendation. The parties are to bear their own costs.
|
