Skip to main content

Service Law: For inflicting major penalty, the department must prove the charges by oral evidence

In Rajendra Prasad Srivastava vs State Of U.P., The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner, while working as Manager and also Divisional Incharge of Mirzapur Division of the respondent no.2, U.P. State Employee Welfare Corporation, 742, Jawahar Bhavan, Lucknow, was suspended from service by the order dated 20.06.2013. A Charge Sheet dated 20.07.2013 was served upon him charging him of 3 charges of indiscipline, negligence and of causing loss to the Corporation, on account of collusion with the contractor and transporter.

The petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge Sheet on 22.08.2013, denying the charges and asserted that whatever illegality was there has been committed by one Sushil Kumar Srivastava, the Centre Incharge. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and without holding any oral enquiry, he tendered his enquiry report dated 27.01.2014. The Copy of Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner alongwith a Show Cause Notice dated 24.06.2015 by the respondent no.2, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 29.07.2015. The respondent no.2 thereafter passed the impugned punishment order dismissing his from service and directing recovery of an amount of Rs.21,24,648/- plus interest amount to Rs.5,73,364/-, hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The second argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer did not conducted any oral enquiry and no opportunity was given to him to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, on whose complaint and statements charges were based and, therefore, the enquiry was against the principles of natural justice.

The court further held that it is trite law, that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers to participate in the enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case the charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.

The court further said, We may hasten to add that the above mentioned law is subject to certain exception. When the facts are admitted or no real prejudice has been caused to employee or no other conclusion is possible, in such situation the order shall not be vitiated. Reference may be made to the some of the decision of Supreme Court in K.L.Tripathi v. State Bank of India reported AIR 1994 SC 273; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma reported AIR 1996 SC 1669 and Biecco Lawrie Ltd. V. West Bengal reported (2009) 10 SCC 32.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more