Ram Shanker Rai vs Administrative Committee Cooperative Bank and Another

Devi Prasad Singh and Ashok Pal Singh, JJ.—Instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order of punishment awarded in pursuance to the regular departmental enquiry. A charge-sheet dated 27.8.2001 was served on the petitioner containing certain charges, in response to which, the petitioner sought certain documents which he was not provided; rather he was asked to inspect the records. The submission of the petitioner is that due to non-supply of relevant documents, he could not submit effective reply to the charge-sheet. A show cause notice dated 14.2.2002 was served on the petitioner requiring him to submit a reply to it. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 18.4.2002 denying the charges levelled against him. He submitted that the enquiry officer has not held any enquiry. No date, time and place was fixed nor copy of the enquiry report was served. However, instead of considering the petitioner''s objection in letter and spirit in view of the law settled by this Court and Hon''ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has been punished by the impugned order of dismissal from service. Feeling aggrieved, present writ petition has been preferred.

In paragraphs 46 and 48 of the writ petition, it has been categorically held that the enquiry officer has not recorded any oral evidence to substantiate the charges. Copy of the relevant documents is not provided. For convenience, paras 46 and 48 of the writ petition are reproduced as under:

that the enquiry officer only on the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner and mentioning the documents which were the basis of the charges held that the charges are proved as the reply has not been submitted by the petitioner whereas it was obligatory upon the enquiry officer to prove the charges during the course of enquiry by holding enquiry, fixing date for enquiry and calling the department to prove the charge before the enquiry officer and held oral enquiry and follow the regulations framed under rule 7(c) of the U.P. Cooperative Centralised Service Rules.

That the enquiry officer neither issued any letter fixing oral enquiry, nor issued any letter to appear before him during the course of enquiry and only letters have been issued to submit reply which were replied to time to time by the petitioner asking time and also asking documents even till last moment the documents asked by the petitioner with respect to charge Nos. 1 and 4 have not been supplied and in the compelling circumstances the petitioner submitted reply that too has not been considered by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity during the course of enquiry.

In response to the aforesaid pleading on record, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit denying the charges levelled by the petitioner that the enquiry officer has not recorded any evidence and submitted the enquiry report straightway holding the petitioner guilty.

Now, it is well settled principle of law that while holding regular enquiry, it shall always be incumbent on the enquiry officer to record evidence to substantiate the charges and in case the delinquent employee does not cooperative, then the enquiry officer may proceed ex parte. Departmental enquiry means after service of charge-sheet, opportunity should be given not only to submit reply to the charge-sheet but all relevant documents should be substantiated by oral evidence with opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, opportunity should be given to lead evidence in defence coupled with opportunity of personal hearing. In any case, in the event of non-cooperation by the petitioner, evidence should be recorded by ex parte proceeding before submitting enquiry report. Noncompliance of these procedures amounts to violation of principle of natural justice and invalidate the enquiry proceedings vide JT State of U.P. and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, ; 1990 LCD 486, Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of U.P.; 1998 LCD 199, Avatar Singh v. State of U.P.; Town Area Committee, Jalalabad Vs. Jagdish Prasad and Others, ; Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation and Another Vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, ; State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal and Another, ; Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and Others, ; Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, .

In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 24.6.2002 (Annexure-1) with consequential benefits. Liberty is given to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of filing of reply to the charge-sheet. In case fresh enquiry is held, it shall be held, expeditiously, say within a period of six months. The consequential benefits shall be subject to final outcome of fresh enquiry, if any. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.