Findings Of Inquiry Officer Are Not Binding On Punishing Authorities: Punjab And Haryana High Court

(a) Whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (b) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; and, (c) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

Brief Facts:

The Workman was deployed as a driver on a bus travelling from Paunta sahib to Amritsar. On the way, the General Manager of Punjab Roadways and one inspector performed an inspection. Under pressure, the conductor of the bus made a complaint to the officers that the bus was being driven by a driver of a private company and not the Workman himself. Subsequently, the Workman was charge-sheeted leading to an inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. The Workman was declared innocent by the Inquiry Officer.

However, the General Manager disregarded the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued a show-cause notice against the Workman. The General Manager withheld the Workman's four annual increments and denied arrears of pay for the suspension period. A second order was also passed against the Workman to withhold a further 2 annual increments. The Workman contested the legality of this order in the Court of the first instance.

The Court of the first instance (“Trial Court”) adjudicated on the matter and ruled in favour of the Workman regarding the first order while dismissing the suit concerning the second order. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the Management lodged an appeal before the lower appellate Court, resulting in a reversal of the Trial Court's decision. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (“High Court”).

The Workman argued that he was found innocent by the enquiry officer, however, the General manager (punishing authority) without following the proper procedure illegally withheld four annual increments. He further contended that the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court being based on surmises and conjectures was liable to be reversed.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court held that in cases where disciplinary inquiries are conducted regarding alleged misconduct by a public servant, the Court is tasked with considering several key aspects. Firstly, the Court must ascertain whether the inquiry was conducted by the competent authority. Secondly, the Court must ensure that the rules of natural justice were adhered to throughout the inquiry process. Thirdly, the Court must determine whether the findings or conclusions are grounded in evidence and whether the authority possesses the power and jurisdiction to reach such conclusions. The High Court held that the punishing authority may either agree or disagree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

Therefore, the High Court found no fault with the procedure followed by the department in punishing the Workman. It held that the inquiry was conducted by the competent authority, the rules of natural justice were observed, and the findings were supported by evidence. Additionally, it noted that the Workman did not furnish the order of punishment which was a crucial piece of evidence. Consequently, the High Court held that the Trial Court erred in its reasoning and its order was liable to be set aside.

Case Title: Rachhpal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Case Number:RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Maanipur

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Teevar Sharma, AAG, Punjab.

Click Here To Read/Download Order