Recording Evidence Mandatory In Disciplinary Proceedings Proposing To Impose Major Penalties: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of a government employee whose termination was based on an inquiry report imposing a major penalty without adequately proving the charges. The court emphasized that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory.

"This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory," the Court reiterated.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when disciplinary proceedings involve allegations warranting a major penalty, it is the Inquiry Officer's duty to record substantive evidence to support the charges brought against the government employee. Without such evidence, the proceedings fail to meet the procedural standards required for imposing significant penalties.

“Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.”, the court said.

The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, faced disciplinary proceedings based on allegations of irregularities. A charge sheet was issued on March 5, 2012, and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on November 29, 2012. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty, including a censure entry and stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect.

The Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal quashed the penalty order, citing a lack of proper evidence and irrational findings by the Inquiry Officer.

However, the High Court reinstated the disciplinary authority's order, overturning the Tribunal's decision. Following this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that no oral evidence or witnesses were presented during the inquiry, making the proceedings unlawful and findings irrational and violative of procedural requirements under Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which mandates recording of oral evidence in support of charges against Government servant when the inquiry being conducted proposes imposition of a major penalty.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta upon referring to precedents of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others (2009) and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another (2013) observed that recording evidence is a mandatory requirement in disciplinary proceedings where major punishments are being proposed.

Since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges against the appellant, the court termed the entire proceedings as non-est in the eyes of law.

“As a consequence, thereof, the High Court fell into grave error of law while interfering in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the order imposing penalty upon the appellant.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the order rendered by the UP Public Service Tribunal was restored.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Pattabhiram, Adv. Mr. Christopher Dsouza, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR

Case Title : SATYENDRA SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 896

Click here to read/download the judgment