TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer and on account of his outstanding services, he was promoted to the post of Consolidation Officer in the year 1961. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in the year 1979 and to the post of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the year 1987. Lastly, he was promoted to the post of Special Land Acquisition Officer in the year 1988. While working as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sharda Sahayak Pariyojana, Lucknow, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.7.1991. After retirement, the petitioner was paid 90% of G.P.F. Amount but the remaining 10% of GPF amount was withheld by the department. 3. According to the petitioner, after lapse of more than four years from the date of retirement, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 19.7.1995 (received by the petitioner on 4.8.1995) containing three charge-sheets having different dispatch numbers of the same day i.e. 4.5.1995 and the petitioner was required to furnish his reply to the charge-sheets. According to him, the documents relied upon by the department were not furnished to the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll opportunity of hearing insofar as all documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not provided to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has not examined the witnesses as demanded by the petitioner and opportunity of cross-examination was also denied. Further 6.6.2000 and 29.6.2000 were fixed for personal hearing by the Enquiry Officer and, the petitioner was present but no oral hearing took place. Further, the disciplinary authority, without examining the enquiry report issued a show-cause notice dated 6.4.2000 to the petitioner, which was replied by the petitioner but the disciplinary authority, without considering the reply so tendered by the petitioner and applying his independent mind, passed the impugned order dated 30.3.2001, which is in utter violation of principle of natural justice. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that during the course of the investigation, the allegation made against the petitioner in the First Information Report lodged against him was found false and incorrect and, therefore, final report was submitted. 9. Per contra, Sri Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the petitioner had superannuated from the pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re to be brought to his personal notice. Copies of such standing orders shall be sent to the Governor and Chief Minister. As per the aforesaid Rules, the Secretary exercised the power and passed the order dated 21.1.1995, which was issued on 4.5.1995 for initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner under Article 351-A of the CCR. 12. Sri Zilani has submitted that regarding authorization i.e. the then Minister of Revenue conferring the power to the Secretary is not traceable in the record of the department. He submits that in view of the misappropriation of public fund and financial irregularities committed by the petitioner during this service, the action undertaken by the department are in public interest. 13. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. In departmental proceedings, an oral enquiry is held to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the delinquent Government servant. The report of the Inquiry Officer is intended to serve the basis on which the disciplinary authority has to take a decision as to whether or not the imposition of any penalty on the Government servant is called for. It is, therefore, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ex Court has emphasized that a proper opportunity must be afforded to a Government servant at the stage of the enquiry, after the charge-sheet is supplied to the delinquent as well as at the second stage when punishment is about to be imposed on him. In State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh (supra) the Apex Court has enumerated some of the basic principles to be observed in the departmental inquiries and consequences in the event, if these basic principles are not adhered to, the order is to be quashed. The principles enunciated are reproduced herein: (i) The enquiries must be conduced bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is to be accepted. 20. It would be useful to mention that in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others, (1986)3 SCC 229, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies the concerned employee cannot prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible. Observance of natural justice and due opportunity have been held to be an essential ingredient in disciplinary proceedings and following these principles, the Apex Court set-aside the order of removal. 21. Fundamental requirement of law is that the doctrine of natural justice should be complied with and has, as a matter of fact, turned out to be an integral part of administrative jurisprudence. It was also held in this case that at an enquiry facts have to be proved and the person proceeded against must have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give his own version or explanation about the evidence on which he is charged and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not call them for cross-examination and submitted its report. Thus, the enquiry was conducted not only in the breach of the principles of natural justice but in violation of the Rules, referred to hereinabove. 24. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and have also examined the material on record. No document has been brought on record, by the Standing Counsel from which it emerges out that documents demanded by the petitioner were either supplied to him or he was allowed to inspect the same. In other words, Counsel for the Petitioner has also failed to show that the documents, which were demanded by the petitioner, were supplied to him during the course of enquiry. 25. There is no dispute to the facts that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.7.1991. The three charge-sheets having dispatch number of the same date i.e. 4.5.1995 were served upon the petitioner on 4.8.1995. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that in view of Rule 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation and the Government Order dated 13.6.1992, the charge-sheets are without jurisdiction and illegal as they h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the pension or from any part of it on account of loss caused to the Government which has been determined in the departmental proceedings or in the Judicial proceedings. However, this rule can be invoked where conditions contemplated by the Rules are satisfied. The conditions are already stated here-in-supra. 27. Our above view is strengthened by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. and another v. Shri Krishna Pandey, AIR 1996 SC 1656. The relevant paragraph 6 of the report reads as under: 6. It would thus be seen that proceedings are required to be instituted against a delinquent officer before retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision that the proceedings be initiated as disciplinary measure and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after retirement. If Rule 351- A is to be operative in respect of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against him is required. On the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogical Products. After his retirement, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on account of committing certain financial irregularities while in service. Before initiation of the departmental enquiry, sanction of the Council of Ministers under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 was obtained. The order for the enquiry purportedly in the name and by order of the Governor of M.P. was communicated to the respondent under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government of M.P. The State Administrative Tribunal quashed the departmental enquiry on the ground of want of proper and valid sanction under Rule 9(2)(b)(i). When the matter reached the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the signature of the Secretary or under Secretary concerned, who is authorized under the authentication rules to sign the documents, signify the consent of the Governor as well as the acceptance of the advise rendered by the Minister concerned. In our view, this case is not applicable in the instant case, as in the instant case, the Secretary of the Revenue Department on its own has accorded its sanction for initiation of the disciplinary proceeding and, thereafter, p....