2021 (10) TMI 1473 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed; structured preliminary inquiry unlawful, only brief fact-check allowed; late filings inadmissible, charges invalid

THE STATE OF ODISHA & ANR. Versus SATISH KUMAR ISHWARDAS GAJBHIYE & ORS

SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the HC's quashing of the Memorandum of Charges and Statement of Imputation. The Court held that the statutory rules do ... Initiation of disciplinary proceedings - challenge to issuance of the charge-sheet by way of filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal - power of appellant to conduct preliminary inquiry before issuance of the Memorandum of Charges - HELD THAT:- It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no provision for preliminary inquiry in the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1969 and the preliminary inquiry was held only in order to facilitate and to find out as to whether any case is made out against respondent no. 1 or not. In the absence of there being any provision for preliminary inquiry, in our opinion, no such preliminary inquiry could have been held. Before deciding as to whether to charge a delinquent employee or not, the employer is entitled to undertake a minimal exercise to ascertain if the allegations raised against the former warrant issuance or memorandum of charges or not. But that would be an informal exercise with that limited objective. To proceed with a structured preliminary enquiry, it must have statutory sanction. A statutory authority can do only such acts which are permissible under the statute and the authority cannot be permitted to do something which is not provided in law. The preliminary inquiry as held in the present case, could neither have been directed nor its report relied upon for framing of charges against the respondent no. 1. The authorities have proceeded in the preliminary enquiry as if it was a guilt-finding exercise and not an exercise on formation of opinion as to whether to proceed against the officer concerned with a regular disciplinary action or not. The High Court, on the basis of the documents placed before it, has rightly held that the Disciplinary Authority had not approved the charges. The filing of documents by appellant as additional documents before this Court cannot be justified, as the same were neither filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal nor before the High Court. Admittedly before the High Court, where the matter was pending for more than two years, the appellant had filed two affidavits but did not file the counter affidavit giving para wise reply, for which respondent no. 1 cannot be held responsible. The appellant had sufficient opportunity to place such documents before the High Court where specific ground in this regard had been raised in the writ petition. Filing of any such document this late at the present stage cannot be justified in law. Even otherwise, the said document, which has now been filed, does not bear the signatures of any officer, including that of the Chief Minister who was the Disciplinary Authority. New documents, which are filed before this Court directly without having been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal or High Court cannot be considered at this stage. The judgment of the High Court is perfectly justified in law and the Memorandum of Charges as well as Statement of Imputation have rightly been quashed by the High Court - Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a statutory framework that does not provide for a formal preliminary inquiry permits a State authority to conduct a structured preliminary inquiry into alleged misconduct of an All India Services officer prior to issuance of a memorandum of charges. 2. Whether a preliminary inquiry conducted in the manner observed in the record (without notice to the charged officer, producing a report finding guilt and leading to framing of charges) is legally valid and admissible for framing disciplinary charges. 3. Whether the memorandum of charges and statement of imputation were issued with valid approval of the disciplinary authority, and whether post-facto or belated documents tendered before the Supreme Court (but not before earlier fora) can be relied upon to supply such approval. 4. Whether the framing of charges reflected predetermination of guilt (prejudgment) by the authorities, thereby violating principles of fair procedure and rendering the memorandum of charges void. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Power to conduct structured preliminary inquiry where Rules do not provide for it Legal framework: 1. All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 govern disciplinary proceedings against All India Services officers; these Rules do not provide for a formal preliminary inquiry prior to issuance of charge memo. 2. General administrative law principle: statutory authorities can validly do only what statute authorizes; absent statutory sanction a public authority cannot undertake a structured quasi-judicial exercise not contemplated by the rules governing the service. Precedent Treatment: 1. Referenced principles from an earlier High Court authority emphasizing that a statutory corporation/authority has only such powers as conferred by statute. 2. Champaklal Chimanlal Shah considered legitimate a limited fact-gathering 'preliminary enquiry' in certain disciplinary contexts, but distinguished from a structured inquiry equivalent to a formal departmental enquiry. Interpretation and reasoning: 1. Where the Rules are silent on a preliminary inquiry, the permissible action by the employer is a limited information-gathering exercise to decide whether to proceed - not a structured inquiry that functions as a guilt-finding mechanism. 2. A structured preliminary inquiry carried out without statutory authority converts the authority into one performing acts beyond its lawful competence and undermines procedural safeguards envisaged by the disciplinary rules and Article 311 protections where applicable. Ratio vs. Obiter: 1. Ratio: It is impermissible for the State to conduct a structured preliminary inquiry in the form it did when the governing Rules do not provide for such an exercise; only an informal fact-gathering exercise is permissible in such circumstances. Conclusion: 1. The structured preliminary inquiry conducted (as per record) lacked lawful basis and could not validly be used to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings. Issue 2 - Validity of preliminary inquiry actually conducted (notice, scope, findings) Legal framework: 1. Principles of natural justice and the procedural scheme for disciplinary enquiries (including Article 311 context) require that the charged officer be afforded opportunity to be heard and that inquiry processes not pre-judge issues. Precedent Treatment: 1. Champaklal Chimanlal Shah and other authorities recognize permissible limited preliminary fact-finding but require that formal guilt-finding be reserved for departmental enquiry conducted with full procedural safeguards. Interpretation and reasoning: 1. The preliminary inquiry was conducted without notice to the charged officer and the inquiry report recorded established guilt and was used to frame charges years later. 2. The conduct and outcome of the inquiry showed characteristics of a guilt-finding exercise rather than a neutral fact-gathering step; this demonstrates prejudgment by the authorities. 3. Such prejudging undermines the possibility of an impartial adjudicatory process when the memorandum of charges is issued and renders the inquiry report unsuitable as the basis for framing charges. Ratio vs. Obiter: 1. Ratio: A preliminary inquiry that is conducted as a guilt-finding exercise without affording notice and opportunity and without statutory authority is invalid for the purpose of framing charges. Conclusion: 1. The preliminary inquiry in the record was invalid and its report could not be relied upon to frame formal disciplinary charges. Issue 3 - Approval by the disciplinary authority and admissibility of late/unsworn electronic documents Legal framework: 1. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memos in service matters requires approval of the competent disciplinary authority as provided by the applicable rules and constitutional/administrative safeguards. 2. Evidence law and principles of fair procedure require that material relied upon in lower forums be placed before those fora; belated production before the ultimate court is generally unacceptable when the documents were not earlier produced and the opposing party had no opportunity to meet them. Precedent Treatment: 1. Authorities cited establish that post-facto approvals, documents not placed before earlier adjudicatory bodies, or unsigned/digital records produced late cannot be relied upon to validate earlier procedural steps, particularly when the writ petition raised the approval issue and substantial time had elapsed. Interpretation and reasoning: 1. The record before the High Court did not show approval by the disciplinary authority; the appellant attempted to place an electronic record before this Court only, alleging approval by the Chief Minister. 2. The Court found such late production unjustified: the appellant had opportunity to file the document earlier, it was not placed before the Tribunal or High Court, and the document lacked signatures and indicia of considered approval (e.g., rapid notings within minutes suggesting absence of application of mind). 3. For these reasons, the additional electronic record could not be relied upon to cure the absence of approval before the disciplinary process commenced. Ratio vs. Obiter: 1. Ratio: Approval by the disciplinary authority must be on record before the authority acts; belated, unsigned, or unplaced documents produced directly before a higher court cannot be relied upon to validate prior defective proceedings. Conclusion: 1. The memorandum of charges lacked demonstrable approval of the disciplinary authority on the record before earlier fora; the late electronic material filed before the Supreme Court could not validate the proceedings. Issue 4 - Predetermination of guilt and adequacy of show-cause procedure Legal framework: 1. Administrative/quasi-judicial proceedings must manifest an open mind; a show-cause notice must afford a realistic opportunity to rebut allegations and must not be a mere formality when authorities have demonstrated prejudgment. Precedent Treatment: 1. Authorities emphasize that if a show-cause notice reflects an impenetrable prejudged opinion, it cannot commence a fair procedure and must be quashed; justice must not only be done but also manifestly appear to be done. Interpretation and reasoning: 1. The Article of Charges recorded findings (e.g., 'on inquiry ... it was established that ...') amounting to definitive conclusions before any formal adjudicatory process occurred, thereby indicating a predetermined mind. 2. A reasonable person reading the charges would conclude that the reply of the charged officer would be an empty exercise; such a perception defeats the object of a meaningful show-cause process. Ratio vs. Obiter: 1. Ratio: A memorandum of charges or show-cause proceedings that reflect conclusive findings made prior to providing the charged officer an effective opportunity of defence are vitiated by prejudgment and must be set aside. Conclusion: 1. The memorandum of charges in the record manifested predetermination of guilt and thereby violated principles of fair procedure; it was rightly quashed. Cross-references 1. Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interlinked: absence of statutory sanction (Issue 1) renders structured inquisitorial steps prone to prejudgment (Issue 2); both lead to the infirmity addressed in Issue 4. 2. Issue 3 is dispositive in validating any procedure: absence of demonstrable approval by the disciplinary authority amplifies the illegality found under Issues 1-2 and reinforces the conclusion on predetermination (Issue 4). Overall Conclusion (Ratio) 1. Where the disciplinary rules governing All India Services officers do not provide for a structured preliminary inquiry, the State is confined to a limited fact-gathering exercise; a structured preliminary inquiry conducted without statutory authority, without notice, producing guilt-finding conclusions, and leading to a memorandum of charges is unlawful. 2. A memorandum of charges that records definitive findings amounting to a predetermined view of guilt and that lacks on-record approval of the disciplinary authority is vitiated and liable to be quashed.