Disciplinary Authority Is Obligated To Follow Rules And Principles Of Natural Justice, Not Only Justice Is Done But Manifestly Seen To Be Done: CAT Cuttack

The Tribunal held that:

“This Tribunal is also remanded by the legal maxim quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur means what is done contrary to law is considered as not done is a well accepted principle commonly applied to all proceedings. It is also trite law that if a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner and not in any other manner. Further, the maxim sublato fundament cadit opus is a well recognized principle that if the foundation is removed, the superstructure will collapse. It is also well settled proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same.”

Brief Facts:

The Applicant was working as a Medical Assistant at ARC Hospital in Cuttack. The department issued a chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, alleging omissions and commissions against him. Following an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (“IO”) submitted a report confirming the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority (“DA”) ordered a de-novo inquiry, which was challenged by the Applicant in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (“Tribunal”). This resulted in the matter being remitted back to the DA with directions to resume proceedings from a specific stage within 60 days. Despite this, the DA proceeded with another inquiry and ultimately issued a punishment order. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Tribunal and filed an original application.

The department contended that Applicant's actions while working as a Medical Assistant warranted disciplinary action. It issued a chargesheet stating specific instances of misconduct, including inappropriate behavior towards a minor girl and a previous instance of misconduct. The DA, after considering the Applicant's defense, proceeded with the inquiry, which led to a decision for a de-novo inquiry due to perceived flaws. The department argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted within the framework of relevant rules and guidelines, and any delays were not substantial.

The Applicant argued that the DA's actions, including conducting a de-novo inquiry and issuing the punishment order, were procedurally flawed and not in accordance with the rules. He argued that the DA exceeded its authority by acting as an Inquiry Officer and imposing a penalty without proper discussion or consideration of his representations. Additionally, he raised concerns about procedural irregularities during the inquiry process, such as discrepancies in daily ordersheets and the lack of supply of relevant documents.

Observations by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal noted that it in a previous order remitted the matter back to the concerned authority due to questions raised about the inquiry's integrity. However, the DA purportedly proceeded to conduct the inquiry afresh, bypassing procedural safeguards. The Applicant contended that the punishment imposed by the DA lacked consideration of crucial defense points, such as the absence of summons, inadequate maintenance of Departmental Observance Sheets (DOS), irregularities in the inquiry proceedings, denial of defense assistance, and restricted access to documents.

The Tribunal referred to the Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which stipulates the actions to be taken upon an inquiry report. The rule mandates that if the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, it may remit the case for further inquiry and report, with explicit provisions for forwarding the inquiry report to the concerned individual for response within a specified timeframe.

The Tribunal noted that the DA's forwarding of the inquiry report and the presenting officer's written brief to the Applicant, allowing an opportunity for response. However, it held subsequent proceedings, as outlined by the Applicant, indicated deviations from prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice.

Of particular concern was the Apparent failure of the DA to adhere to Rule 15, resulting in a deficiency in the inquiry process. The Tribunal held that the DA conducted the inquiry independently, disregarding procedural requirements such as examining witnesses, providing opportunities for cross-examination, and facilitating the submission of a written brief by the applicant post-inquiry closure.

The Tribunal referred to State of UP & Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131, and held that departmental inquiries cannot be treated lightly, requiring diligent adherence to natural justice principles to ensure fairness and transparency. Additionally, referring to Yoginath D. Bagde Versus State of Maharashtra and another, (1999) 7 SCC 739, the Tribunal affirmed the constitutional right of employees to be heard.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to the legal maxim "quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur," stating that actions contrary to law are considered null and void. The Tribunal held that there is necessity of following prescribed procedures.

Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was a gross violation of rules, procedures, and principles of natural justice, resulting in a miscarriage of justice for the Applicant. While acknowledging that under normal circumstances, it would have quashed the proceedings entirely, the Tribunal took into account previous observations on the allegations against the Applicant.

Consequently, the Tribunal made the decision to quash the impugned order of punishment and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority, instructing strict adherence to Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules. The tribunal imposed a deadline of sixty days for the completion of the disciplinary proceedings from the receipt of the order, ensuring expeditious resolution.

Case Title: Biswa Nath Parida vs Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: OA 260/00541 of 2019

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. S.K. Ojha, Counsel

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. S. Behera, Counsel