2022 (12) TMI 128 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Regular Departmental Enquiry , which admittedly was instituted against the claimant-respondent under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 was conducted as per the law enunciated? - misbehavior with the superior officer - punishment of Stoppage of One Increment for One Year and Censure - HELD THAT - We took note of the enquiry report dated 19.06.2018 (at page 106 of paper book) and we find from the same that to prove the charges and documents in support thereof the statements of witnesses indicated in charge-sheet were not recorded by the Enquiry Officer after fixing date, time and place for the said purpose. In other words, the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet were not examined during the enquiry. Accordingly, no opportunity was given to the claimant-respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. Further, in the writ petition, it has not been pleaded that for recording oral evidence, the date, time and place was fixed under intimation to the charged official - the Regular Enquiry under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 was not conducted as per the settled view on this aspect and being so, the Regular Enquiry in our view is vitiated. Whether the impugned orders dated 17.09.2018 and 11.01.2019 before the Tribunal were speaking or not? - HELD THAT - It is in view of the fact that the impugned order(s), are based on enquiry report and we have already observed that enquiry report is vitiated and keeping in view the same as well as the maxim Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus (a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls), we are of the view that the impugned orders, referred above, cannot be upheld. Whether in not remanding the matter before the Disciplinary Authority to hold the enquiry afresh from the stage it was found vitiated, the Tribunal has committed an error? - HELD THAT - If an Authority/Court sets aside the order of punishment on technical ground then the matter may be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority and employee should not be reinstated, however, whether or not the Disciplinary Authority should be given an opportunity to complete the enquiry afresh depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, for coming to the conclusion the Authority/Court concerned must take into consideration all the relevant aspects and facts of the case including the charges and magnitude of misconduct alleged and examine the same. The Regular Departmental Enquiry under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 against the claimant-respondent was initiated vide order dated 05.12.2017 regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on 10.10.2017. The writ petition is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the "Regular Departmental Enquiry" was conducted as per the law.
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the enquiry.
3. Whether the orders dated 17.09.2018 and 11.01.2019 were non-speaking.
4. Whether the Tribunal erred in not remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh enquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the "Regular Departmental Enquiry" was conducted as per the law:
The court examined the enquiry report dated 19.06.2018 and found that the Enquiry Officer did not record the statements of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet after fixing date, time, and place for the said purpose. Consequently, no opportunity was given to the claimant-respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. The enquiry was based on unproved documents and written replies without oral evidence. The court highlighted that a "Regular Enquiry" requires the Enquiry Officer to fix date, time, and place for examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and to allow the delinquent employee to produce their witnesses. The Enquiry Officer must submit a report detailing all relevant facts, evidence, and findings on each charge. The court concluded that the "Regular Enquiry" was not conducted as per the settled legal principles, thereby vitiating the enquiry.

2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the enquiry:
The court noted that the Tribunal interfered with the orders dated 17.09.2018 and 11.01.2019 on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, as the opportunity for cross-examination was not provided to the claimant-respondent. The court agreed with the Tribunal's observation, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial and must adhere to principles of natural justice. The enquiry should be conducted in a fair, reasonable, and impartial manner, providing due opportunity for hearing to the delinquent employee.

3. Whether the orders dated 17.09.2018 and 11.01.2019 were non-speaking:
The court acknowledged that the Tribunal found the orders non-speaking. However, the court did not delve into this issue in detail, as it had already determined that the enquiry report was vitiated. The court applied the maxim "Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus" (a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls), indicating that since the enquiry report was flawed, the subsequent orders based on it could not be upheld.

4. Whether the Tribunal erred in not remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh enquiry:
The court considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, LIC of India, which states that if a punishment order is set aside on technical grounds, the matter may be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the enquiry afresh, depending on the gravity of the delinquency involved. The court evaluated the facts, including the minor nature of the punishment (stoppage of one increment for one year and censure), the time elapsed since the initiation of disciplinary proceedings (about five years), and the magnitude of the alleged misconduct. The court concluded that, given these circumstances, it was not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision not to remand the matter for a fresh enquiry.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order dated 05.04.2022, which quashed the orders dated 17.09.2018 and 11.01.2019 due to the vitiated enquiry process and violation of principles of natural justice. The court found no error in the Tribunal's decision not to remand the matter for a fresh enquiry, considering the minor nature of the punishment and the time elapsed.

← Previous Next →