9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant had been censured and warned. The Appellant was asked to hand over the key of his almirah but he refused to do so. He also used indecent language. The said alimirah was sealed. He was served with an order of suspension. The said seal on the almirah was broken at a later date i.e. 15.01.1988 and it was opened with a duplicate key. A chargesheet containing six charges was thereafter served upon him. The Appellant in response to a show cause notice, filed show cause. Upon receiving his explanation, four out of six charges were dropped. The charges wherefor a departmental proceeding was initiated against him are as under : "Charge No. 1 On 13.1.98 Deputy Secretary accompanied by Hon'ble Lok Ayukta went on round to your room at 10.30 A.M. and he wanted to see if there was any undisposed of matters and documents lying with you and found that in violation of his orders, you had locked your almirah. On making request, you did not open the almirah yourself and when you were asked to give its key, you got enraged and using a very indecent and vulgar language, you refused to hand over the key and in a fit of anger crying at the pitch of your voice you said that you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said in a fit of anger that he will not give the keys and that he should be suspended." He was served with a second show cause in regard to quantum of punishment. In his second show cause notice, the Appellant again raised the question of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice including bias on the part of the Lok Ayukta, stating : "Therefore, it is very humbly requested that your honour may be kind enough to set aside the implementation of the proposed punishment and in this connection, if your honour is still willing to take further steps in the matter then it is humbly prayed that you may set aside the whole inquiry proceedings and may frame the chargesheet afresh and then may, kindly, refer the matter to His Excellency the Governor or to the State Government for appointing an Inquiry Officer so that the applicant may be able to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses concerned including your honour without fear before an impartial Inquiry Officer." By reason of an order dated 03.12.1998, the Appellant was directed to be removed from service but taking a compassionate view, he was awarded maximum compassionate allowance in terms of C.S.R. 353. In his ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e charges. The charge against the petitioner for keeping the necessary files in his almirah and misbehaving against the Lok Ayukta no doubt amounts to an unbecoming act, but the question which calls for consideration is that against such an act of misconduct, whether a persons should be removed from service. We are of the view that justice would have met, if the petitioner retired from service compassionately from the date the order of removal was passed against the petitioner, and he may be given the salary and allowance, during the period, he remained under suspension." These appeals have been preferred by the Appellant as also by the State. Mr. Pramod Swarup, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of Civil Appeal No.7359 of 2003, would submit that the Lok Ayukta himself being a witness to the occurrence could not have taken over the disciplinary proceeding himself. Mr. Swarup urged that it would be evident from the records of the case that the Lok Ayukta made up his mind from the very beginning and in that view of the matter the order of punishment passed by him is not sustainable. Our attention was further draw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower to impose punishment on the Appellant vested only in him. When the Lok Ayukta appointed one Shri S.K. Arora, a retired Director of Defence Estate, an objection thereto was taken by the Appellant himself stating that no person from outside should be appointed as the Inquiry Officer. In the aforementioned situation, the Lok Ayukta had no other option but to take upon himself the burden of holding the departmental proceedings. The appellant, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise any contention that the disciplinary proceeding should have been conducted by some other officer. It has not been contended that any other officer working in the office of Lok Ayukta was available for conducting such enquiry. It is true that the principle of natural justice is based on two pillars : (i) nobody shall be condemned without hearing; and (ii) nobody shall be a judge in his own cause. It is, however, well known that the principles of natural justice can be excluded by a statute. It can also be waived. In a case where doctrine of necessity is applicable compliance of the principles of natural justice would be excluded. Referring to the doctrine of necessity, Sir Wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as to how he had dealt with the same. He being the Private Secretary was a man of confidence. He was bound to follow the prevailing practice. It was his duty to place all the complaints and letters received from other departments before the Lok Ayukta. The office of a Lok Ayukta is of great importance. People approach Lok Ayukta with various grievances. They require urgent enquiry. It is not difficult to presume that only because such complaints were received, a practice developed that no almirah should kept under lock and key. The Appellant must be presumed to have knowledge thereabout. Despite the same he had put his almirah under lock and key. He refused to hand over the key when called upon to do so. He did not cross-examine the only witness who was available. He also did not examine himself. He did not examine any defence witness. He did not show any remorse and in that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the order of punishment passed by the Lok Ayukta suffered from any infirmity. Presumably in this view of the matter alone, the High Court did not go into the questions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
