9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of rules of natural justice and Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. 2. Predetermined mindset in conducting the enquiry. 3. Incommensurate punishment of dismissal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of rules of natural justice and Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970: - Non-supply of Preliminary Enquiry Report: The petitioner argued that the preliminary enquiry report, which was relied upon by the prosecution, was not supplied to him. The court found considerable force in this argument, noting that the non-supply of the report prejudiced the petitioner's defense. The court cited a precedent where non-supply of such a report was deemed a violation of natural justice. - Examination of Unlisted Witnesses: The enquiry officer examined witnesses not cited in the list of witnesses, violating Rule 8(3) & (4) of the Punishment and Appeal Rules. This rule mandates that the list of witnesses and documents be supplied to the delinquent officer to prevent surprises and ensure a fair defense. The court found this to have prejudiced the petitioner. - Reliance on Statements Not Examined or Supplied: Statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry were relied upon without examining those witnesses or providing copies of their statements to the petitioner. The court held that relying on such statements without giving the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses violated natural justice principles. - Assistance of Government Employee: The petitioner was not informed that he could have the assistance of another government employee during the enquiry, violating Rule 8(8) of the Punishment & Appeal Rules. The court cited a Supreme Court judgment affirming that it is mandatory to inform the delinquent officer of this right. - Hearing by Disciplinary Authority: The petitioner was heard by the Director, Food & Supplies, rather than the Secretary to the Government, Punjab, Food & Supplies Department, who was the actual Disciplinary Authority. The court held that the hearing by the correct authority is crucial for ensuring that the delinquent officer can argue against the enquiry report effectively. 2. Predetermined mindset in conducting the enquiry: - Prejudgment in Charge-Sheet: The court found that the language used in the charge-sheet indicated that the petitioner's guilt had already been determined. Phrases like "proved as a careless and irresponsible officer" and "it is proved that he is careless, irresponsible and not trustworthy" suggested a predetermined mindset. The court cited several precedents emphasizing that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and found that the enquiry officer could not have maintained an open mind under these circumstances. 3. Incommensurate punishment of dismissal: - Quantum of Punishment: The court did not delve into the question of whether the punishment of dismissal was commensurate with the charge, given that the enquiry proceedings were already found to be vitiated on other grounds. Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 2.5.1991 dismissing the petitioner from service was quashed. The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits from the date of the dismissal order. There was no order as to costs.
|
