Individual Facing Disciplinary Proceedings Failing To Cooperate During Review Of Material Can't Later Claim That They Weren't Provided With Evidence: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgment, established that when an individual facing disciplinary proceedings is granted the opportunity to view all relevant material but fails to cooperate, they cannot later claim that they were not provided with the evidence underpinning the charges.“The record would also indicate that the petitioner was permitted to verify the entire material,...
The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgment, established that when an individual facing disciplinary proceedings is granted the opportunity to view all relevant material but fails to cooperate, they cannot later claim that they were not provided with the evidence underpinning the charges.
“The record would also indicate that the petitioner was permitted to verify the entire material, report, but the petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, it only leads to conclusion that petitioner intentionally tried to protract the enquiry proceedings. Furthermore, petitioner failed to demonstrate as to how prejudice was caused to her because of non-supply of alleged documents sought by her.”
The order was passed by Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty in a transferred Writ petition filed by a retired government employee (Elizabeth) who challenged the government order reducing her pension by half and demanding recovery of a financial loss attributed to the allegation that she was responsible for loss of revenue to the government, as shown in the charges, due to wrong calculation of chargeable value of the documents and wrong levy of stamp duty and registration fee, which exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government and thereby contravened the Rule 3 (1) & (2) of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2009 (for the alleged offences which took place in the year 1999), an inquiry Officer was appointed and an inquiry was conducted.
Throughout the process, the petitioner was given multiple chances to present her defense and was granted access to all relevant documents. However, she repeatedly requested additional documents and adjournments, thereby delaying the proceedings for a considerable span of 10 years.
The court, upon reviewing the records, observed that the petitioner's conduct indicated an intention to prolong the inquiry unnecessarily. Despite being given ample opportunities to participate and verify the evidence against her, she failed to cooperate fully with the inquiry officer. The court noted that although multiple requests for documents were made for submission of a reply, no reply was ever filed by the petitioner.
The court also noted that even though the required documents were sent to her via registered post, they were returned undelivered due to her unavailability.
The Bench lastly noted that the Regular Inquiry Officer had also addressed a memo to the petitioner objecting to her delay tactics, and the petitioner was also warned that in case a timely reply was not submitted, an ex-parte order would be passed based on the material available.
“From the above material available on record, it emerges that from the date of inception of enquiry till the date of issuing impugned order, the petitioner all along has been trying to protract the enquiry proceedings on the ground that relevant documents concerning the charges framed against her were not furnished to her. However, the ground raised by the petitioner that no copies of documents were provided to her is misleading, which is apparent from the material available on record. Petitioner failed to explain as to what prejudice is caused to her because of non-supply of documents, except general statement made by her in her representations.”
Based on these observations, the court concluded that the petitioner's claim of not being provided with the necessary documents was misleading and without merit. The court held that she had been given adequate access to all relevant materials and had sufficient opportunity to defend herself.
Her subsequent claim of non-cooperation was deemed to be a tactic to delay the proceedings, and the court refused to entertain it. Thus the petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Case title: Smt. Elizabeth vs. State of TS
Writ Petition (TR) No.6221 of 2017
Counsel for petitioner: C Srinivasa Baba
Counsel for respondent: GP for Services II