After Setting Aside Punishment In 'Improperly Conducted' Disciplinary Enquiry , Court Cannot Preclude Conduct Of Enquiry From The Point That It Stood Vitiated : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that once a Court set aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law.

It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.

In this case, the State Public Service Tribunal allowed an appeal filed by delinquent employee who was dismissed from service on the ground that no inquiry was conducted after the employee was charge- sheeted. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State challenging this order. The allegation against the employee is of absence from duty for more than 327 days.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noticed that no evidence was led by the department to prove the misconduct against the employee. In the absence of any proof of misconduct, the order of punishment of dismissal from service was rightly interfered with by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court, the bench said. Referring to earlier judgments including ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515, the court observed"

"This Court in Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515 held that once the Court set aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law... This Court in a Constitution Bench judgment reported as ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 held that if the Court finds that furnishing of the enquiry report would have made a difference to the result, in such case it should set aside the order of punishment. Where the Court sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief which should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to back­wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome."

Allowing the appeal, the court remitted back the matter to the disciplinary authority to conduct the departmental proceedings from the stage prior to the order of punishment.

Case details

State of Uttar Pradesh vs Prabhat Kumar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736 | CA 1567/2019 | 1 September 2022 | Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia

Headnotes

Disciplinary Proceedings - Once the Court set aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law - Referred to Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515. (Para 6)

Disciplinary Proceedings - If the Court finds that furnishing of the enquiry report would have made a difference to the result, in such case it should set aside the order of punishment. Where the Court sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief which should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to back­wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome - Referred to ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727. (Para 7)

Click here to Read/Download Order