Affidavit by government servant not misconduct absent court finding of falsity; punishment also failed for lack of notice of disagreement.

Filing an affidavit by a government servant in judicial proceedings did not, by itself, constitute misconduct under the service rules where no court had found the statement false or improperly motivated; the truth of such evidence lay within the court's exclusive domain, so departmental punishment on that basis was unsustainable. Where the inquiry officer had exonerated the employees and the disciplinary authority proposed to differ and impose a major penalty, natural justice required prior notice of disagreement and an opportunity to respond; absent such notice, the adverse finding and punishment were procedurally invalid. The dismissal order was quashed and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether filing of an affidavit by a government servant in judicial proceedings, without any adverse finding by the court, constitutes misconduct under the service rules and can independently justify departmental punishment. (ii) Whether the disciplinary authority could impose a major penalty after differing from the inquiry officer's favourable finding without first giving the delinquent employees notice of the proposed disagreement.

Issue (i): Whether filing of an affidavit by a government servant in judicial proceedings, without any adverse finding by the court, constitutes misconduct under the service rules and can independently justify departmental punishment.

Analysis: The service rules required government servants to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, but they did not expressly treat appearance as a witness or filing an affidavit in court as misconduct. The Court read the conduct rules along with the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act and held that questions about the truth or falsity of evidence given in court, including affidavits, lie within the court's exclusive domain. It held that a witness enjoys statutory protection in judicial proceedings and that departmental authorities cannot usurp the court's function of testing credibility. In the absence of any adverse finding by the High Court that the affidavit was false or filed for extraneous gain, the departmental charge was unsupported.

Conclusion: Filing an affidavit in court, by itself and without a judicial finding of falsity or improper motive, did not amount to misconduct and could not sustain departmental punishment.

Issue (ii): Whether the disciplinary authority could impose a major penalty after differing from the inquiry officer's favourable finding without first giving the delinquent employees notice of the proposed disagreement.

Analysis: Where the inquiry officer exonerated the employees on the core allegation and the disciplinary authority proposed to record a contrary finding, principles of natural justice required the authority to record tentative reasons for disagreement and afford an opportunity of representation before arriving at the final conclusion. The Court applied settled law that the disciplinary authority must hear the delinquent employee before overturning a favourable inquiry report, especially where the proposed adverse finding forms the basis of punishment. Since no such notice of disagreement was served, the punishment order suffered from procedural illegality.

Conclusion: The disciplinary authority's adverse finding and resulting penalty were unsustainable for breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal order was quashed, and the employees were directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: Filing an affidavit or giving evidence in judicial proceedings by a government servant does not constitute misconduct unless a competent court records that the statement was false or improper, and a disciplinary authority cannot independently decide the truth of such evidence or punish on that basis without complying with the principles of natural justice when differing from the inquiry report.

---