Non-Speaking Dismissal Orders And Procedural Lapses In Disciplinary Proceedings Violate Natural Justice: MP HC

Background

Vijay Singh Yadav, the petitioner, was employed by the BDA as an Assistant Grade I and, in an officiating capacity, held the post of Revenue Officer. However, certain alleged irregularities attributed to Yadav and two other employees concluded in Yadav's suspension in July 2016 on grounds of misconduct. Following this, a charge sheet containing six charges was issued to Yadav, who denied all allegations. Despite Yadav's consistent attendance during the enquiry process, he alleged that the enquiry officer failed to conduct a thorough investigation, did not examine witnesses, and neglected to provide him an opportunity to respond to critical documents. Yadav challenged his dismissal and the Appellate Authority's decision upholding it through multiple petitions, asserting that his dismissal violated statutory procedures and principles of proportionality.

Arguments

Yadav's counsel argued that his dismissal was a case of “no evidence” as the disciplinary process did not include witness testimony or direct proof of his alleged misconduct. They argued that the enquiry officer overstepped, formed an independent conclusion without assessing admissible evidence. It was argued that disciplinary orders must be supported by clear reasoning and evidence, both absent in Yadav's case. Further, other officers facing similar allegations were treated more leniently, bringing discrimination concerns. On the other hand, the BDA's counsel maintained that the enquiry was conducted per established procedure and that Yadav's non-appearance at certain hearings was indicative of his lack of cooperation. They argued that the disciplinary authority's scope for decision-making in such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution should limit judicial intervention.

Court's Reasoning

First, the court noted that the enquiry report lacked witness testimony. This went against Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which mandates thorough procedural safeguards during disciplinary proceedings. The court emphasized that relying on unverified documents, and not affording the accused an opportunity to challenge them, fundamentally compromises their defense. Secondly, the court found that the order of dismissal was a “non-speaking order”; it was devoid of any substantive rationale that supports its decision. The court reiterated that disciplinary actions must be reasoned; the disciplinary authority must independently analyze facts, and not merely echo the findings of the enquiry officer. The lack of independent reasoning indicated a failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to apply its mind before concluding Yadav's guilt.

In addition, the court examined the proportionality of the imposed penalty, noting that penalties should align with the gravity of the offense. The court noted that similar charges against another officer were resolved with lesser penalties, suggesting a discriminatory approach meted out in Yadav's case. The court highlighted that this inconsistent treatment reflected a disregard towards the principle of uniform application of justice. The court also asserted that supplying an enquiry report to a delinquent employee is a fundamental right to ensure a fair opportunity for defense. In Yadav's case, the BDA's failure to provide the enquiry report or any explanation as to why it was withheld violated this established principle. This also infringed upon his right to be heard, a central tenet of natural justice.

Finally, the court reiterated that judicial review in disciplinary matters is permissible where procedural lapses occur or where disciplinary findings are based on conjecture rather than evidence. Since the findings against Yadav were speculative and lacked concrete evidence, it warranted judicial interference to prevent an “unnatural expansion of natural justice”. Thus, the petition was allowed, and the court directed the BDA to reinstate Yadav with full back wages and benefits.

Date: 23-10-2024

Case Details: Vijay Singh Yadav v. Bhopal Development Authority & Another, WP No. 15125 of 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 282

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.C. Ghildiyal (Senior Advocate) with Mr. K.N. Fakhruddin

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Kapil Duggal

Click Here To Read/Download The Order