2016 (11) TMI 1749 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of order of punishment of compulsory retirement - Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Seeking grant of medical leave with permission to leave the station - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have heavily relied on the fact that before forwarding the copy of the report by letter dated 02.04.2008 the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members have already formed an opinion on 25.02.2008 to punish the writ Petitioner with major penalty which is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. Before making opinion with regard to punishment which is to be imposed on a delinquent, the delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit the representation/reply on the inquiry report which finds a charge proved against the delinquent. The opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members on 25.02.2008 was formed without there being benefit of comments of the writ Petitioner on the inquiry report. The writ Petitioner in his representation to the inquiry report is entitled to point out any defect in the procedure, a defect of substantial nature in appreciation of evidence, any misleading of evidence both oral or documentary. In his representation any inputs and explanation given by the delinquent are also entitled to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority before it embarks with further proceedings as per statutory rules. There was violation of principle of natural justice at the level of Disciplinary Authority when opinion was formed to punish the writ Petitioner with dismissal without forwarding the inquiry report to the delinquent and before obtaining his comments on the inquiry report - the order of the High Court setting aside the punishment order as well as the Appellate order has to be maintained. Thus, present is the case where the High Court while quashing the punishment order as well as Appellate order ought to have permitted the Disciplinary Authority to have proceeded with the inquiry from the stage in which fault was noticed i.e. the Stage Under Rule 15 of Rules - sufficient time has elapsed during the pendency of the writ petition before learned Single Judge, Division Bench and before this Court, however, in view of the interim order passed by this Court dated 31.08.2015 no further steps have been taken regarding implementation of the order of the High Court. The ends of justice be served in disposing of this appeal by fixing a time frame for completing the proceeding from the stage of Rule 15. Appeal allowed in part.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed.
2. Allegations of willful absence and disobedience of superior's orders.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Adequacy of the inquiry process and consideration of defense evidence.
5. Procedural lapses in forwarding the inquiry report and forming disciplinary decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed:

The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') filed an appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the writ Petitioner. The High Court directed the reinstatement of the writ Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including the opening of a sealed cover for promotion. The Supreme Court examined whether the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed were valid.

2. Allegations of willful absence and disobedience of superior's orders:

The writ Petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer, was charged with willful absence from duty and disobedience of superiors' orders. Despite being directed multiple times to appear before the Medical Board to verify his illness, the writ Petitioner failed to comply. The Inquiry Officer found the charge of willful absence and disobedience proven. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and decided to impose a major penalty.

3. Compliance with principles of natural justice:

The High Court concluded that the principles of natural justice were violated as the Disciplinary Authority had pre-decided the punishment before providing the writ Petitioner with a copy of the inquiry report. The Supreme Court emphasized that forming an opinion on punishment without obtaining the delinquent's comments on the inquiry report breaches natural justice. The writ Petitioner should have been given an opportunity to submit a representation against the inquiry report before any decision on punishment was made.

4. Adequacy of the inquiry process and consideration of defense evidence:

The Division Bench noted that the Inquiry Officer did not adequately discuss the evidence of the defense witness, Engineer P.C. Sardana, who testified about the writ Petitioner's illness. However, the Supreme Court found that the Inquiry Officer had indeed noted the defense witness's statement, and thus, there was no infirmity in the inquiry report regarding the consideration of defense evidence.

5. Procedural lapses in forwarding the inquiry report and forming disciplinary decisions:

The Supreme Court observed that the Disciplinary Authority formed an opinion on 25.02.2008 to impose a major penalty without first forwarding the inquiry report to the writ Petitioner and obtaining his comments. This procedural lapse violated the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the delinquent officer must be given a chance to respond to the inquiry report before any disciplinary decision is made.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's judgment as follows:
1. All proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority after the submission of the inquiry report dated 29.12.2007, including the punishment order dated 25.08.2009 and the Appellate order dated 10.12.2009, were set aside.
2. The Disciplinary Authority was directed to forward the inquiry report to the writ Petitioner as per Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. The writ Petitioner was given 15 days to submit his representation to the inquiry report.
4. The Disciplinary Authority was instructed to complete the proceedings and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the writ Petitioner's representation.

The Supreme Court's decision ensures that the principles of natural justice are upheld in disciplinary proceedings, allowing the writ Petitioner a fair opportunity to defend himself before any punitive action is taken.

← Previous Next →