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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more