2013 (9) TMI 922 - HC - Indian Laws

Penalty of Reduction in Rank - from Commercial Trade Tax Officer-II to a Class III post - Held that - The enquiry report stands vitiated for violation of the provisions of Rule 7 read with Rule 9(1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - On this ground alone, the order reducing the rank of the petitioner to that of a Class III post, cannot be sustained and was liable to be quashed - when an order of punishment was found to be vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice or on technical grounds, and was set aside on that ground, the matter was to be remitted back to the point where the error had crept in so as to complete the proceedings from the point that they stood vitiated - However, there were always exceptions to such general rule - The court must examine the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee - the essence of the matter was that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts and to balance and weigh the same, so as to determine if it was in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that proceedings were allowed to be terminated only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. Already 14 years have passed from the date of the incident and the petitioner was found not guilty in the first enquiry and now, it may be very difficult for the petitioner to lead complex evidence in defense and it may also be difficult for the department to lead such complex evidence in support of the allegation and, more importantly, when on the charge, penalty of dismissal or removal from service was not awarded by the department itself, we do not consider it to be a fit case to remit the matter for completing the enquiry again, particularly, when the petitioner had already retired from service and had served on the post pursuant to interim order of this Court. Opportunity of Being Heard Held that - The petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of personal hearing in the re-inquiry that was ordered - No material had been brought on record - ordinarily, where a person pleaded innocence and denies the charges, a date was fixed for leading of evidence - Taking a reply from a Government servant charged with such charges which may result in imposition of a major penalty and proceeding straight away to record a finding of guilt, without fixing a date for leading of defense evidence or otherwise giving opportunity to lead evidence, amount to gross violation of principles of nature justice, particularly, when the charged employee had denied the charges and had prayed, in writing, that if his reply was not found satisfactory then he may be given opportunity of personal hearing to provide his defense - If the respondents had produced some material, by way of minutes of the enquiry proceedings, to show that the charged employee was offered opportunity to lead evidence which he availed or refused to avail, then, perhaps, such conclusion of inquiry could be justified - Nothing in the counter-affidavit or on the record, which may show that after receipt of reply from the petitioner, on 27.11.2001, evidence was led by either side - If there was no evidence to infer collusion of the petitioner with other officials, till submission of first inquiry report, it was all the more necessary to collect additional evidence in that regard in the re-inquiry, as was directed Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty of reduction in rank imposed on the petitioner.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice and procedural rules during the disciplinary proceedings.
3. Validity of the inquiry reports and subsequent disciplinary actions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty of Reduction in Rank:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.05.2003 by which the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., imposed a penalty of reduction in rank, reverting him from the post of Commercial Trade Tax Officer-II to a Class III post. The petitioner argued that the penalty was imposed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and Procedural Rules:
The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of Rule 7 and Rule 9(1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Specifically, the petitioner argued that:
- He was not provided with an opportunity for personal hearing despite his request.
- The Inquiry Officer did not inform the petitioner about the progress of the inquiry or fix any date for hearing.
- The Inquiry Officer proceeded to record a finding of guilt without giving the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses.

The court found that the Inquiry Officer failed to comply with the procedural requirements under Rule 7 and Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1999. The court noted that the petitioner had specifically requested a personal hearing if his written explanation was not satisfactory, but no such hearing was provided. The court held that this amounted to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Validity of the Inquiry Reports and Subsequent Disciplinary Actions:
The court examined the findings of the initial and subsequent inquiry reports. The first inquiry report exonerated the petitioner of both charges, concluding that:
- The gate pass was issued by another officer, not the petitioner.
- The petitioner had passed the papers in due course based on the documents presented, and there was no evidence of misconduct.

The Disciplinary Authority rejected the first inquiry report and ordered a re-inquiry, citing the need to investigate potential collusion and manipulation in the register entries. However, the court found that the second inquiry report did not present any new evidence to support the allegations of collusion. The court observed that the second inquiry report relied on the same circumstances as the first report, which were insufficient to prove the charges.

The court also considered the overall circumstances, including the petitioner's age, the time elapsed since the incident, and the fact that the petitioner had already retired. The court noted that the allegations required detailed and complex evidence, which would be difficult to produce after such a long time.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the subsequent inquiry report was vitiated due to procedural violations and lack of new evidence. The court quashed the order dated 27.05.2003, reducing the petitioner's rank and directed that the petitioner be entitled to all consequential benefits. The court also noted that remitting the matter for another inquiry was not appropriate given the time elapsed and the petitioner's retirement. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.