2006 (4) TMI 455 - SC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary Proceedings-Conducting of on the issues on which no charges framed Propriety of-Employee allegedly failed and/or neglected to maintain a register known as ACE-8 Register-Disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, five years after he handed over charge, remained pending for seven years-The Enquiry Officer proceeded as if in the departmental proceedings the employee was charged with misappropriation of property-Employee was removed from service-The appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal filed by the employee, went into the question of maintenance of muster roll and the diaries maintained on a day-to-day basis although that was not the subject matter of the charge-The High Court also proceeded on the basis that the non-maintenance of diary amounted to misutilization of copper wire-Held It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited-Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge-A serious charge could not have been enquired into without framing appropriate charges-Initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer-Hence, the orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority cannot be sustained-Dismissal set aside-Judicial Review.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-maintenance of ACE-8 Register.
2. Failure to supervise the utilization of telegraph copper wire.
3. Misleading entries on transportation bills.
4. Delay in disciplinary proceedings.
5. Evaluation of evidence and findings by the disciplinary and appellate authorities.
6. Judicial review of quasi-judicial functions in disciplinary proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-maintenance of ACE-8 Register:
The Appellant was charged with failing to maintain the ACE-8 Register, which was crucial for showing the acquisition and utilization of 4000 kgs of telegraph copper wire. The Enquiry Officer found this charge to be proven, but the Supreme Court noted that the Appellant was not charged with theft or misappropriation of the copper wire. The Court highlighted that if misutilization or misappropriation was the issue, appropriate charges should have been framed.

2. Failure to supervise the utilization of telegraph copper wire:
The second charge against the Appellant was his failure to supervise the utilization of the copper wire. The disciplinary authority upheld this charge, but the Supreme Court found no clear evidence of the Appellant's specific duties in terms of the prescribed rules. The Court observed that the maintenance of ACE-8 sheets attached to the estimate file was not shown to be inappropriate.

3. Misleading entries on transportation bills:
This charge was not proven during the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this charge as it was already dismissed by the disciplinary authority.

4. Delay in disciplinary proceedings:
The Supreme Court criticized the inordinate delay in the disciplinary proceedings, which took seven years to conclude, and an additional seven years for the appellate authority to dismiss the appeal. The Court referenced the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Anr., emphasizing that such delays are unfair and prejudicial to the delinquent officer.

5. Evaluation of evidence and findings by the disciplinary and appellate authorities:
The Supreme Court found that the disciplinary and appellate authorities proceeded on a wrong premise by treating the case as one of misappropriation or theft without framing specific charges. The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer's findings were not commensurate with the charges and that the authorities ignored significant evidence in favor of the Appellant. The appellate authority also failed to consider the procedural lapses and the Appellant's detailed memo of appeal.

6. Judicial review of quasi-judicial functions in disciplinary proceedings:
The Supreme Court reiterated that while judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited, the Enquiry Officer must base his findings on relevant evidence and not on surmises or conjectures. The Court found that the Enquiry Officer's report suffered from several vices, including ignoring relevant testimonies and considering irrelevant facts. Consequently, the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities based on this flawed report could not be sustained.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the reinstatement of the Appellant with 50% back wages due to the long pendency of the proceedings. The Court also awarded costs of the appeal to the Appellant, assessing counsel's fee at Rs. 5000/-. The decision underscores the necessity for timely and fair disciplinary proceedings and the importance of framing appropriate charges based on the nature of the alleged misconduct.