Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 922 - HC - Indian LawsPenalty of Reduction in Rank - from Commercial Trade Tax Officer-II to a Class III post - Held that:- The enquiry report stands vitiated for violation of the provisions of Rule 7 read with Rule 9(1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - On this ground alone, the order reducing the rank of the petitioner to that of a Class III post, cannot be sustained and was liable to be quashed - when an order of punishment was found to be vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice or on technical grounds, and was set aside on that ground, the matter was to be remitted back to the point where the error had crept in so as to complete the proceedings from the point that they stood vitiated - However, there were always exceptions to such general rule - The court must examine the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee - the essence of the matter was that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts and to balance and weigh the same, so as to determine if it was in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that proceedings were allowed to be terminated only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. Already 14 years have passed from the date of the incident and the petitioner was found not guilty in the first enquiry and now, it may be very difficult for the petitioner to lead complex evidence in defense and it may also be difficult for the department to lead such complex evidence in support of the allegation and, more importantly, when on the charge, penalty of dismissal or removal from service was not awarded by the department itself, we do not consider it to be a fit case to remit the matter for completing the enquiry again, particularly, when the petitioner had already retired from service and had served on the post pursuant to interim order of this Court. Opportunity of Being Heard – Held that:- The petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of personal hearing in the re-inquiry that was ordered - No material had been brought on record - ordinarily, where a person pleaded innocence and denies the charges, a date was fixed for leading of evidence - Taking a reply from a Government servant charged with such charges which may result in imposition of a major penalty and proceeding straight away to record a finding of guilt, without fixing a date for leading of defense evidence or otherwise giving opportunity to lead evidence, amount to gross violation of principles of nature justice, particularly, when the charged employee had denied the charges and had prayed, in writing, that if his reply was not found satisfactory then he may be given opportunity of personal hearing to provide his defense - If the respondents had produced some material, by way of minutes of the enquiry proceedings, to show that the charged employee was offered opportunity to lead evidence which he availed or refused to avail, then, perhaps, such conclusion of inquiry could be justified - Nothing in the counter-affidavit or on the record, which may show that after receipt of reply from the petitioner, on 27.11.2001, evidence was led by either side - If there was no evidence to infer collusion of the petitioner with other officials, till submission of first inquiry report, it was all the more necessary to collect additional evidence in that regard in the re-inquiry, as was directed – Petition allowed.
|