Disciplinary Authority's Order Relying On Report Of Inquiry Officer Not Supported By Evidence Is Unsustainable: Patna High Court
Sanjana Dadmi
3 July 2024 10:18 AM GMT
The Patna High Court has held that the report of an Inquiry Officer per se cannot be treated as evidence by the Disciplinary Authority in a disciplinary proceeding when the officer did not properly examine any evidence.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri further stated the order of the Disciplinary Authority based on such evidence violates the principles of natural justice.
Brief facts
The petitioner was suspended from his services by the order of Disciplinary Authority under 'Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005' for allegedly accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000, based on a vigilance trap memo. But the order was set aside by the High Court (in C.W.J.C. No. 1970 of 2016) due to non-examination of evidence by Disciplinary Authority.
In a new enquiry against the petitioner, he was once again suspended by the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner filed another petition (C.W.J.C. No. 24179 of 2018) in the High Court. But during the pendency of the petition, he superannuated from his service and the Disciplinary Authority passed another order by which petitioner's 100% pension and gratuity were forfeited under Bihar Pension Rules. He challenged the forfeiture order through an interlocutory application and the High Court set-aside the order as it was not based on proper evidence, with liberty to initiate new inquiry.
After this order, a new enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer based on which the Disciplinary Authority passed the same order of 100% forfeiture of petitioner's pension benefits, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is challenging this order of forfeiture of 100% of his pension.
The High Court expressed that neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority adhered to the previous orders of the Court which indicated the manner in which enquiry/ departmental proceeding were to be conducted by them. The Court noted that the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority ordered forfeiture of petitioner's pension without considering and recording any evidence.
Inquiry Officer's report
It referred to the Supreme Court case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors (AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 921),where it was observed that an Inquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial officer and thus has a duty to examine witnesses and materials brought on record by the parties. Further, that the evidence collected by the Inquiry Officer against the delinquent employee by itself cannot be treated as evidence in a disciplinary proceeding.
In the present case, the Court noted that the vigilance trap memo could not have been treated as evidence unless the contents of the memo were proved by its maker. The Inquiry Officer placed reliance on it even though its contents were not proved and did not examine the person who made the complaint against the petitioner.
It stated that the report of the Inquiry Officer was based on mere suspicion and since “suspicion…however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof”, the Court held the inquiry report to be unsustainable.
Disciplinary proceedings
Similarly, the Court noted that the Disciplinary Authority passed its orders on mere suspicion and did not consider any evidence.
It stated that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not assign proper reasons for their orders and did not follow the principles of natural justice.
“A decision must be arrived at on some evidence which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are” the Court remarked.
The Court thus quashed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and held that the petitioner is entitled to all pensionary benefits.
Case title: Umesh Kumar Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.6902 of 2022)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 53
