Disciplinary Authority Cannot Take Upon The Role Of Enquiry Officer: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the orders in a disciplinary proceeding because the disciplinary officer took upon himself the role of the enquiry officer, found the petitioner guilty and quantified an amount as personal liability. Justice Devan Ramachandran, held thus: “This is because, once the ‘Investigating Team’ had found liability against the petitioner, the matter should...
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the orders in a disciplinary proceeding because the disciplinary officer took upon himself the role of the enquiry officer, found the petitioner guilty and quantified an amount as personal liability.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, held thus:
“This is because, once the ‘Investigating Team’ had found liability against the petitioner, the matter should have gone back to the Enquiry Officer for completing the disciplinary proceedings because, as I have said above and as is conceded in all pleadings and documents, said Authority had found the charge to be inconclusive for want of proper inputs. Instead of doing so, the Disciplinary Authority took upon himself the role of the Enquiry Officer also, thus to find the petitioner guilty and to finally conclude that the afore figure should be reckoned as his ‘personal liability’. “
The petitioner retired as Assistant Engineer from Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). The writ petition was filed for disbursement of retiral benefits.
The counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Shameena Salahudheen submitted that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner based on a charge memo. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer found first charge for unaccounted materials as disproved due to lack of materials. Second charge for insubordination was proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority disregarded the enquiry report and constituted an investigating team that quantified a large amount of sum against the petitioner. Disciplinary authority then held the petitioner personally liabile and recovered it from retirement benefits.
Advocate K S Anil, Counsel for the KSEB submitted that due to lapse of time, the reports of the investigating team are not available. He averred that an investigating team was constituted by the disciplinary authority for quantification of the liability.
The Court found that there are grave errors on the part of the KSEB in conducting the enquiry. The court noted that the petitioner was not informed of the investigation done by the investigating team. The disciplinary authority should have submitted the report to the enquiry officer who should have decided it, the Court stated as:
“These proceedings were never completed with the participation of the petitioner, nor was he kept informed as to the manner in which investigation was done by the ‘Investigating Team’; and perhaps, it was not necessary at that stage for the Team to have done so because, all inputs arising out of their exercise ought to have gone back to the enquiry, for the Enquiry Officer to finally conclude on the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner.”
The court noted that the statutory authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner ought to have taken note of the fact that the quantum of personal liability was fixed by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority did not arrive at the quantum from the disciplinary enquiry because the enquiry regarding the first charge was never completed, the Court stated. It found that quantum arrived at by the disciplinary authority can only be considered as a personal assessment of the petitioner based on the 'untraceable report' of the investigating team.
Thus, the Court quashed the orders against the petitioner.
Case Title: Bhaskaran KP v Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd ( WPC No. 40499/2017)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 375