Sustainability Of Punishment Order Questionable If Procedure Not Followed During Inquiry Stage: Allahabad High Court

“Failure to follow procedural requirements during inquiry stage raises a serious concern about the validity of the punishment order. It is imperative that the disciplinary process is carried out in a manner that allows the affected parties to present their case, respond to the allegations and have a fair opportunity to defend themselves,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh.

Factual Background

The petitioner was selected as a Civil Judge and posted to District Mau. His service was covered under the Government Servant (Service & Conduct) Rules, 1956, read with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999.

Just after being recruited into the service, the petitioner received several messages on social media with questions related to competitive examinations. Amongst the people who messaged the petitioner was 'ABC', who subsequently filed a complaint against the petitioner dated 26.12.2018.

The petitioner submitted his reply on 16.01.2019 and forwarded it to the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, on 17.10.2019. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, and the District Judge, Mau, was appointed the Inquiry Officer in the petitioner's case. The charge sheet, among others, alleged that the petitioner had raped the complainant (ABC) on the pretext of helping her prepare for the competitive examination.

In response, the petitioner submitted his reply on 24.08.2019. He denied the allegations and brought facts about the complainant on record. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 03.12.2019, by which the petitioner was exonerated from the main charge of rape.

However, adverse observations were made against him regarding his acceptance of a friend request from an unknown lady on social media, showing her questionable images and transferring money to her.

The first respondent issued a subsequent notice to the petitioner along with the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted a reply on 13.01.2020, and the impugned order was passed against him on 13.05.2022.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry officer had not followed the procedure laid down by the Rules of 1999. It was submitted that the inquiry report was not maintainable because the delinquent officer had not been given an opportunity to make his case before passing the impugned order.

Further, though the authorities had exonerated the petitioner on the main charges, the order was passed without giving any reasons for the same.

In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner primarily placed reliance on the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 16.01.2019. Further reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. and Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. The State of Madhya Bharat. Petitioner contended that despite notices being served, the complainant had not participated in the inquiry proceedings and that there had been no evidence to prove the charges levelled against him.

High Court Verdict

Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Umesh Kumar Sirohi v. State of U.P. and Anr., the Court held that there were no proper reasons for passing the punishment order dated 13.05.2022. The Court stated that the principles of natural justice and the fair and transparent manner in which proceedings were to be conducted had been violated completely.

The Court held that failure to follow the process at the inquiry stage raised concern about the validity of the punishment order. The Court held that the departmental proceedings were quasi-judicial in nature and that the principles of natural justice had to be complied with.

The Court stated that while the disciplinary authority was entitled to arrive at its own conclusion by making inferences based on the evidence produced by the authority, in the particular case, no evidence was placed before the inquiry officer to prove the charges.

“Though, the petitioner specifically denied the charge in his reply to the notice issued by the District Judge, Mau and also to the charge-sheet, but surprisingly without adducing any evidence, the inquiry officer by taking irrelevant and extraneous facts into consideration, made an adverse observation in the passing, after exonerating the petitioner of the specific charge of rape,” observed the Court.

The Court held that given that the complainant had not appeared before the concerned body and proven any part of the charges framed against the petitioner, it never became open to the inquiry officer to make any adverse observation against the petitioner by relying on the FIR.

“The burden to prove the charge was not discharged by the employer, to any extent,” stated the Court.

The Court stated that the issuance of a reasoned order was imperative not only to justify the decision taken, but also to give the opposition a chance to understand the rationale behind the punishment. It was held that once the petitioner had been absolved of the main charge against him due to lack of evidence, there was no reason to reach an adverse observation from the suspicions of the inquiry officer.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Nyaydhish Pankaj vs. Allahabad High Court And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435 [WRIT - A No. - 11668 of 2022]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435