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

Court upholds Tribunal decision quashing orders due to procedural flaws. No error in not remanding for fresh enquiry.

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax (Inst. Finance Tax And Reg.) Govt. U.P. And Others Versus Alka Rajwanshi

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax (Inst. Finance Tax And Reg.) Govt. U.P. And Others Versus Alka Rajwanshi - TMI 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.