2014 (5) TMI 1233 - HC - Indian Laws

Executive Engineer's punishment order quashed for lack of proper enquiry under U.P. Government Servant Rules 1999

Kaptan Singh Versus State of U.P.

Kaptan Singh Versus State of U.P. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of major punishment without conducting a proper inquiry.2. Compliance with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in the disciplinary process.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of major punishment without conducting a proper inquiry:The petitioner challenged the order dated 5.3.2014 by the State Government, which imposed a major punishment of reduction to the minimum pay scale of Executive Engineer. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 12.7.2011, and a charge-sheet dated 18.7.2011 was issued, containing three charges related to irregularities in construction work under the NABARD Project, non-compliance with financial regulations, and indifference towards duties. The petitioner denied the charges in his reply dated 28.7.2011. However, the Enquiry Officer did not fix any date, time, or place for holding an inquiry, nor conducted any oral inquiry. The report was submitted directly after the petitioner's reply without any further inquiry. The court found that no inquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer, which is a mandatory requirement under the law for imposing a major punishment.2. Compliance with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999:The court examined Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. The rules mandate that an inquiry must be conducted, including the examination of documentary and oral evidence, even if the delinquent does not request a personal hearing. The Enquiry Officer is required to fix a date for the inquiry, inform the delinquent, and proceed with the inquiry, either in the presence of the delinquent or ex parte if the delinquent does not appear. The court found that the Enquiry Officer failed to follow these procedural requirements, rendering the disciplinary proceedings invalid.3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in the disciplinary process:The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require that the delinquent employee be given a reasonable opportunity to defend against the charges. This includes holding an oral inquiry where the delinquent can explain his conduct and the Inquiry Officer can assess the evidence and responses. The failure to conduct an oral inquiry and examine the evidence violated these principles. The court cited several judgments reinforcing the necessity of adhering to these principles and the procedural requirements under the rules.Conclusion:The court quashed the impugned punishment order due to the failure to conduct a proper inquiry as required by law. The respondents were directed to appoint a new Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh inquiry from the stage after the submission of the reply to the charge-sheet, and complete the process within specified timelines. The court also directed the Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of U.P., to investigate the circumstances under which the Enquiry Officer submitted the report without conducting an inquiry and consider appropriate proceedings against him if no plausible explanation is provided. A copy of the judgment was to be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., and the Legal Remembrancer for necessary compliance and to prevent such procedural lapses in the future. The writ petition was partly allowed, with the petitioner permitted to raise other issues before the Inquiry Officer/disciplinary authority at the appropriate stage.