THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. versus RAJIT SINGH on 22 March 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentEand order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, LucknowBench in Service Bench No. 5554 of 2020 by which the High Court hasdismissed the said writ petition and has refused to set aside the orderpassed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referredto as “Tribunal”) passed in Claim Petition No.2226 of 2017 whereby theclaim petition of the respondent employee came to be allowed and theForder passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty/punishment came to be set aside, the State of Uttar Pradesh has preferredthe present appeals.

2. That the respondent employee was serving as a Junior Engineerat Balia. An enquiry was conducted by a Departmental Task Force whereGit was found that he had committed financial irregularities causing lossto the Government. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against therespondent and others. The respondent was served with charge sheet.That thereafter the Enquiry Officer held the charges alleged against therespondent employee as proved and consequently also held theHmisconduct proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of recovery ofGovernment loss of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- as per the rules from the salary;temporarily stopping two salary increments and the remarks given forthe year 2017-2018.

2.1 The respondent filed a representation against the said orderbefore the State Government, which came to be rejected. That thereafterthe respondent filed a Claim Petition No.2226 of 2017 before the Tribunalchallenging the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.The Tribunal allowed the said petition and quashed the punishment mainlyon the ground of Doctrine of Equality and also on the ground that theenquiry conducted was in breach of principles of natural justice in asmuch as the relevant documents mentioned in the charge sheet werenot supplied to the delinquent officer.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed bythe Tribunal quashing and setting aside the punishment, the State preferredthe writ petition before the High court. By the impugned judgment andorder, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has refusedto interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. That thereafter theState preferred Review ApplicationNo.138 of 2021 before the High Court.The High Court has dismissed the said review application also.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the High Court in Service BenchNo.5554 of 2020 as well as the order passed by the High Court rejectingthe review application, the State has preferred the present appeals.

3. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the State has vehemently submitted that in the present case fullestopportunity was given to the respondent – delinquent officer by theDisciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the respondent was servedwith the Enquiry Report and thereafter was given the opportunity by theDisciplinary Authority and after considering the detailed representationby the respondent employee againstthe findings recorded by the EnquiryOfficer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment, which oughtnot to have been set aside by the Tribunal.

3.1 It is further submitted that assuming that the EnquiryProceedings were vitiated on the ground of violation of principles ofnatural justice, in that case also as per the settled proposition of law, thematter ought to have been remanded to the Enquiry Officer and the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ADisciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stageof violation of the principlesof natural justice. It is submitted that however,when it is a case of loss to the extent of Rs. 22,48,964.42/-, that too, bythe Junior Engineer, the respondent employee cannot be permitted to letoff.

B

B3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shukla, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the State that another ground given by the Tribunalas well as the High Court that other employees involved in respect ofthe same incident were exonerated and/or no action was taken againstthem, is concerned, it is submitted that on the aforesaid ground, theEnquiry Report and the order of punishment imposed by the DisciplinaryCAuthority cannot be set aside. It is submitted that it depends upon theindividual role played by the concerned employee. It is submitted thateven otherwise merely because some other employees involved in respectof the alleged misconduct might have been exonerated and/or no actionwas taken against them, cannot be a ground to set aside the order ofDpunishment imposed in case of an employee, who is found to be guilty ofmisconduct.

4. Shri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing on behalfof the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal as wellas the High Court.

E

4.1 It is submitted that considering the fact that all other officers,who were also involved in respect of the same incident, namely, AssistantEngineer and Executive Engineer were exonerated and thereforeapplying the Doctrine of Equality, both, the Tribunal as well as the HighCourt have rightly set aside the order of punishment imposed by theFDisciplinary Authority with respectto the alleged misconduct for whichother employees came to be exonerated.

4.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise, the enquiryconducted was in total breach of principles of natural justice in as muchas the documentsmentioned in the charge sheet were not at all suppliedGto the respondent – delinquent officer and therefore the entiredepartmental enquiry proceedings were vitiated. It is submitted thattherefore the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of punishmentimposed by the Disciplinary Authority which is rightly not interfered bythe High Court.

H

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

H

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Enquiry Officerheld the respondent – delinquent officer guilty for the misconduct allegedand the charges levelled againsthim of causing monetary loss to theextent of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- and other charges, which are held to beproved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishmentafter giving the respondent opportunity to meet the findings recorded bythe Enquiry Officer and thereafter imposed the punishment. The Tribunalset aside the orderof punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authoritybymainly applying the Doctrineof Equality and by observing that as otherofficers involved in the incident were exonerated and/or no action wastaken against them, therefore, no action was warranted against respondentalso. The Tribunal has also observed and held that even otherwise, theenquiry proceedings were in breach of the principles of natural justice inas much as the relevant documents mentioned in the charge sheet werenot at all supplied to the delinquent officer. The order passed by theTribunal has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgmentand order.

7. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the order ofpunishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority applying the Doctrineof Equality on the ground that other officers involved in the incidenthave been exonerated and/or no action has been taken against them, isconcerned, we are of the firm view that on the aforesaid ground, theorder of punishment could not have been set aside by the Tribunal andthe High court. The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been appliedwhen the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority held the chargesproved against the delinquent officer. The role of the each individualofficer even with respect to the same misconduct is required to beconsidered in light of their duties of office. Even otherwise, merelybecause some other officers involved in the incident are exoneratedand/or no action is taken against other officers cannot be a ground to setaside the order of punishment when the charges against the individualconcerned - delinquent officer are held to be proved in a departmentalenquiry. There cannot be any claim of negative equality in such cases.Therefore, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committeda grave error in quashing and setting aside the order of punishmentimposed by the Disciplinary Authority by applying the Doctrine ofEquality.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunalalso observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principlesof natural justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the chargesheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settledproposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is notconducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles ofBnatural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee assuch and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/DisciplinaryAuthority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violationof principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to beproceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentionedCin the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to thedelinquent officer in the instant case. In the case of Chairman, LifeInsurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013)6 SCC 530, which was also pressed into service on behalf of theappellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under:-

D“16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets asidean order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was notproperly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. Itmust remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for itto conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, andconclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCCE727], HiranMayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School forGirls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S.Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30]).”

9. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighFCourt, it appears that when the aforesaid submission and the aforesaiddecision was pressed into service, the High Court has not consideredthe same on the ground that the other officers involved in respectof thesame incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken against them.Applying the law laid down in the case of A. Masilamani (supra) toGthe facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal aswell as the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to theDisciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stoodvitiated. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court in not allowingfurther proceedings from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuanceof the charge sheet, is unsustainable.H

10. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons statedabove, the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the High Courtquashing and setting aside the order of punishment imposed by theDisciplinary Authority byapplying the Doctrine of Equality is herebyquashed and set aside. However, as the enquiry is found to be vitiatedand is found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice in asmuch as it is alleged that the relevant documents mentioned in the chargesheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer, we remand the matterto the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage itstood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet and to proceedfurther with the enquiry after furnishing all the necessary documentsmentioned in the charge sheet and after following due principles of naturaljustice. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of sixmonths from today.

Present appeals are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H