TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Clerk and while she was posted at Regional Office, Commercial Tax (now State Tax), she allegedly misbehaved with her superior officer on 10.10.2017. Elaborating the incident indicated in the charge-sheet, it is stated by learned State counsel that on 10.10.2017 in regard to submission of report regarding tax to be recovered, the claimant-respondent stated before the concerned Authority i.e. Dyputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax, Meerut) that no training in that regard was provided to her despite the fact that she had been working in the department since last 29 years and she further stated that her posting at present place was against her wishes and in loud words she also misbehaved with the officer concerned, that too, in presence of office staff. This act of the claimant-respondent was in violation of provisions of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Accordingly, on being found prima facie guilty of misbehaviour with superior officer, which comes within the purview of "misconduct", departmental proceedings were initiated against her and in furtherance a duly approved charge-sheet was issued/served on her on 15.12.2017, to which, she submitted reply on 23.01.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Authority concerned to conclude the matter afresh from the stage it was vitiated. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Y.S. Sandhu reported in (2008) 12 SCC 30 and Chairman LIC of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned State counsel that impugned order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent while rebutting the contention as raised by learned State counsel, submits that the Authority/Court before whom the order of punishment is in issue, can see the said order on merit. His submission further is that remanding the matter to hold the enquiry afresh, if the order of punishment is vitiated on account of non-following the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules/regulation or for non-observance of principles of natural justice, depends upon the gravity of charges/delinquency involved, evidence in support of charges and magnitude of misconduct and in the present case the punishment imposed is minor and accordingly remand is not required and bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rementioned grounds. 18. The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that, the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by court. The same principle is applicable, in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question, have to be examined, taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges involved therein. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into consideration, all relevant facts and to balance and weigh the same, so as to determine, if it is infact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that the judicial proceedings are allowed to be terminated, only on the ground of delay in their conclusion (Vide: State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 943; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. After completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer is required to submit its report, stating therein all the relevant facts, evidence and statement of findings on each charge and reasons thereof, and thereafter, prior to imposing any punishment, the copy of the report should be provided to charged officer for the purposes of submission of his reply on the same. The punishment order should be reasoned and speaking and must be passed after considering entire material on record. (vide: Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. 1990 (8) LCD 486; Avatar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1998 (16) LCD 199; Town Area Committee, Jalalabad Vs. Jagdish Prasad 1979 Vol. I SCC 60; Managing Director, U.P. Welfare Housing Corporation Vs. Vijay Narain Bajpai 1980 Vol. 3 SCC 459; State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal 1998 (6) SCC 651; Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1998 SC 117; Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others AIR 1985 SC 1121; Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories 2003 (21) LCD 610; Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570; M.M. Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (33) LCD 836; Moti Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (31) LCD 1319; Ka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 was conducted as per the law enunciated. On the above question, we took note of the enquiry report dated 19.06.2018 (at page 106 of paper book) and we find from the same that to prove the charges and documents in support thereof the statements of witnesses indicated in charge-sheet were not recorded by the Enquiry Officer after fixing date, time and place for the said purpose. In other words, the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet were not examined during the enquiry. Accordingly, no opportunity was given to the claimant-respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. Further, in the writ petition, it has not been pleaded that for recording oral evidence, the date, time and place was fixed under intimation to the charged official. It further appears that the Enquiry Officer, based upon the unproved documents mentioned in the charge-sheet as also considering the questions put to the claimant-respondent and written reply to the same submitted by the witnesses prepared his report and thereafter submitted the same before the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the "Regular Enquiry" under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 was not conducted as per the sett....