2006 (2) TMI 679 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of documents relied upon by the inquiry officer.
2. Continuation of departmental proceedings post-acquittal in a criminal case.
3. Adequacy and reliability of evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
4. Procedural fairness and natural justice in disciplinary actions.
5. Authority of the disciplinary authority versus the High Court's supervisory power.

Detailed Analysis:

Non-supply of Documents:
The primary issue was whether the non-supply of the documents relied upon by the inquiry officer, including the report of the District Magistrate and other allied documents, vitiated the departmental proceedings. The learned Single Judge upheld that the non-supply of these documents indeed vitiated the proceedings as it denied the respondent No. 1 a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Single Judge directed the disciplinary authority to supply the necessary documents to the respondent and then allow him to file comments before reaching a fresh conclusion.

The Division Bench, however, quashed the entire disciplinary proceeding on the grounds that the documents were not listed in the charge sheet and were not supplied to the respondent. The Supreme Court, referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors., held that non-supply of the inquiry report and other documents would cause serious prejudice to the respondent and would amount to a denial of natural justice. The Supreme Court endorsed the Single Judge's approach of remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration after supplying the documents.

Continuation of Departmental Proceedings Post-acquittal:
The respondent argued that the disciplinary proceedings should be discontinued following his acquittal in the criminal case. The Supreme Court reiterated that the nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding. An acquittal in a criminal case does not bar the continuation of departmental proceedings. This principle was supported by previous rulings in Nelson Motis v. Union of India and Ors. and Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Pathamthitta and Ors. v. A. Gopalan.

Adequacy and Reliability of Evidence:
The Division Bench found the findings of the disciplinary authority perverse, particularly because the District Magistrate's report was not proved for its reliability and authenticity, and the witnesses were not examined. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the disciplinary authority and inquiry officer are the sole judges of facts, and the adequacy and reliability of evidence are not matters for the High Court to consider in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice, particularly the necessity of supplying the inquiry report and other documents to the delinquent employee before imposing any punishment. This ensures that the employee has a fair opportunity to meet, explain, and controvert the findings. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan and the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors.

Authority of the Disciplinary Authority versus High Court's Supervisory Power:
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench overstepped its supervisory powers under Article 226 by deciding on the merits of the case and setting aside the disciplinary proceedings. The proper course was to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration after ensuring procedural fairness. The Supreme Court restored the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of supplying the necessary documents to the respondent and allowing him to file comments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, and restored the order of the learned Single Judge with modifications. The disciplinary authority was directed to supply the necessary documents to the respondent, allow him to file comments, and then reach a fresh conclusion. The respondent was to be paid subsistence allowance during the pendency of the departmental proceedings. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.