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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more