Khet Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality of the charge-sheet dated 26.5.1987 (Annex.2), the order Annexure-17 dated 29.9.1989 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner and the order Annex. 22 dated 23.3.1998, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order Annexure-17 dated 29.9.1989 passed by the Disciplinary Authority was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

Facts in brief are that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet Annexure-2 dated 26.5.1987/16.6.1987 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A. Rules). Vide order dated 26.5.1987 Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, Baran was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner.

When the petitioner received the charge sheet, he realized that he had not been supplied with statement/memorandum of allegations and certain of the relied upon documents. Thereupon he submitted a representation Annex. 4 dated 26.6.1987 to the Disciplinary Authority praying for being provided with a copy of the statement of allegations and the other relevant documents so that he could defend himself in the inquiry proceedings. The prayer so made by the petitioner was not responded to, upon which, he submitted yet another representation Annexure 5 dated 8.7.1987, praying for being supplied with the relevant documents and the statement of allegations. The desired documents and the statement of allegations were not supplied to the petitioner despite numerous requests and reminders. The Executive Engineer, PHED Ajmer wrote a warning letter Annex. 12 dated 28.9.1988 to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4, the Inquiry Officer to supply the statement of allegations to the petitioner. The language of the letter Annexure-12 has a material bearing on the controversy at hand and the relevant portion thereof is quoted herein below for the sake of convenience:-

From a bare look at the aforesaid communication, it is abundantly clear that when the charge sheet was furnished to the petitioner, the same was not accompanied with the statement of allegations. The document was supplied to him after the issuance of the warning letter Annexure-12. However, significantly, by the time the statement of allegations were supplied to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer had concluded the inquiry and the inquiry report had already been submitted for consideration before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority gave a notice of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said notice and claimed exoneration. The Disciplinary Authority however did not accept the explanation and passed the order Annexure-17 dated 29.9.1989, directing removal of the petitioner from service. Relevant extracts from the Disciplinary Authority''s order Annexure-17 are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-

The Disciplinary Authority proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges and passed the impugned order Annexure-17 dismissing the petitioner from service.

The petitioner preferred an appeal Annexure-18 against the order of dismissal from service. Certain supplementary grounds were pleaded by the petitioner in his appeal vide memorandum Annexure-19. A specific ground was raised before the Appellate Authority that no witness was examined by the Inquiry Officer while holding the inquiry. The disciplinary authority also did not examine a single witness at its level while conducting the proceedings. The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner''s appeal by order Annexure-22 dated 23.3.1998, upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the instant writ petition.

Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order Annexure-17 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is vitiated for the reason that the same was based on an inquiry report which had no sanctity in the eye of law. He contended that as per the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, for conducting an inquiry under the said Rule, it is obligatory that the delinquent should be supplied with the copies of the charge sheet, proposed charges and the statement/memorandum of allegations as well as the relied upon documents. He submitted that admittedly, as per the document Annexure-12, the charge sheet served to the petitioner was not accompanied with the statement of allegations. By the time, copy of the statement of allegations was supplied to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer had already concluded the inquiry and had submitted the inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity whatsoever of defending himself during the inquiry proceedings. Referring to the order Annexure-17 dated 29.9.1989, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Mr. Bhandari urged that a bare look at the order would show that neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority examined any witness during the course of inquiry and held the petitioner guilty without there being any evidence in support of the charges. He further submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is absolutely perfunctory and laconic. Specific grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal were not adverted to by the Appellate Authority and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in a lackadaisical fashion. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order Annexure-17, whereby the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposed upon him the penalty of removal from service as well as the order Annexure-22 passed by the Appellate Authority, are grossly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the mandatory procedure of law as prescribed under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules and deserve to be quashed.

He relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 120 FLR 610 : (2009) 2 JT 176 : (2009) 2 LLJ 21 : (2009) 1 SCALE 284 : (2009) 2 SCC 570 : (2009) 1 SCC(L&S) 398 : (2009) 3 SLJ 14 : (2009) 4 SLR 78 : (2008) 1 UJ 183 and that of Hon''ble Division Bench of this court in the case of Amritlal Vs. State of Raj. and Others, (1981) WLN 457 and urged that as no oral evidence was led to prove the charges, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report and as a consequence the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority in the impugned order Annexure-17 are based on no evidence whatsoever and thus, the inquiry proceedings are totally vitiated. He thus, prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and while quashing the impugned orders, the petitioner who has since crossed the age of superannuation should be granted all consequential benefits.

Per contra Mr. N.K. Mehta, learned Dy. G.C. attempted to defend the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority pleading that there were serious allegations of embezzlement against the petitioner, and therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority should not be interfered with merely on the basis of technical procedural defect in the mode of conducting the inquiry. However, he could not dispute the fact that no evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority during the course of the disciplinary inquiry.

Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material available on record. The basic thrust of the arguments advanced by the petitioner''s counsel for assailing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority can be enumerated as under:-

The statement/memorandum of allegations was not supplied to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet.

No evidence was recorded by the Inquiry Officer during the course of Inquiry.

As the statement of allegations was not supplied to the petitioner and the inquiry was concluded before such statement of allegation could be provided to him, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer.

The appellate authority while deciding the petitioner''s appeal, did not advert to the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal and rejected the appeal with a total non-application of mind to the facts of the case.

The fact that the statement of allegations were not supplied to the petitioner before conducting the inquiry is not in dispute. The abovequoted portion of the order Annexure-12 clearly shows that the Disciplinary Authority realized the situation that the statement of allegations was not supplied to the employee along with the charge-sheet.

The order Annexure-17, whereby the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty also clearly reflects that the inquiry officer concluded and forwarded the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 6.2.1988.

The statement of allegations were supplied to the petitioner on 30.9.1988. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 15.12.1988 but by that time, the inquiry officer had already concluded the inquiry and forwarded his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. Faced with this situation, the Disciplinary Authority took it upon itself to examine the defence of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the whole substratum of the departmental case was set up during the course of inquiry which was admittedly conducted without supplying the statement of allegations to the petitioner. As the statement of allegations were concededly not supplied to the petitioner before the inquiry was initiated, he was definitely deprived of any fair chance to defend himself during the course of the inquiry. Thus, the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer were absolutely slipshod and bear no credence whatsoever. In the background of this factual scenario, if at all the Disciplinary Authority was desirous of proceeding with the matter on his own, then it was essential that after supplying the copy of the statement of allegations to the petitioner and receiving his reply, the Authority should have examined witnesses and exhibited documents at his own level and the petitioner should have been provided an opportunity of cross examination as well. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority does not reflect that any witness was examined by him. The Disciplinary Authority observed in its order Annexure-17, that the Inquiry Officer committed a procedural lapse while conducting the inquiry but despite making this observation, he chose to rely upon the flawed and impaired inquiry report for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.

As per Rule 16(7) of the CCA Rules, whenever a disciplinary inquiry is proposed to be held against an employee under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, recording of evidence is mandatory. Mere filing of the documents would not bring them within the purview of evidence as per the Evidence Act. A party, who proposes to prove its case is required to do so by leading evidence. Evidence can either be oral or documentary. Whenever a document (except such documents of which no formal proof is required as per law) is purported to be proved, the same has to be tendered in evidence through a witness. The Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrit Lal (supra) held that documents available on the record of inquiry proceedings have to be proved by leading evidence if the department proposes to rely upon the same. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court propounded the ratio that mere production of documents during the course of a departmental inquiry is not sufficient. Contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. As admittedly, no evidence was led by the department to bring home the charges, the impugned order Annexure-17, whereby the penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner is absolutely illegal and arbitrary as the same was passed in total violation of the mandatory procedure of inquiry stipulated under the CCA Rules. The order Annexure-22 passed by the Appellate Authority is also perfunctory and laconic inasmuch as the specific grounds raised in the memorandums Annexure-18 and 19 were not even adverted by the Appellate Authority while deciding the petitioner''s appeal.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves acceptance and is hereby allowed. The impugned charge-sheet Annexure-2 dated 26.5.1987, order Annexure-17 dated 29.9.1989 and the order Annexure-22 dated 23.3.1998 passed by the Appellate Authority are declared illegal and are hereby quashed and set aside. As the petitioner has already superannuated, he shall be entitled to all consequential monetary and service benefits pursuant to the quashing of the order of removal.

No order as to costs.