State of Uttaranchal and Others vs Prem Pal Singh

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—On 4.7.2000, a chargesheet was issued to the Respondent alleging that he remained absent unauthorizedly for five several periods, namely, (1) from 19.7.99 to 25.8.99; (2) 4.9.99 to 7.9.99; (3) 11.11.1999 to 22.11.99; (4) 25.11.99 to 22.12.99 and; (5) 27.12.99 until 4.7.2000, namely, the date of charge sheet. This chargesheet was purported to be served upon the Respondent at his village, as recorded in his service record. When the service was sought to be effected upon him, it transpired that the Respondent is not available. As a result, enquiries were made, when it transpired that for seven years, the Respondent has not visited the village. Subsequently, on 28.8.2000, the chargesheet was handed over to the brother of Respondent at the selfsame village. The Respondent did not give any reply to the chargesheet. Still then, the enquiry officer was appointed, who purported to enquire into the matter on 29.10.2000, 8.11.2000, 15.11.2000 and 24.11.2000.

The records do not suggest that any notice of the enquiry was served upon the Respondent. Assuming the service of the chargesheet upon the brother of Respondent, as service upon the Respondent, but the fact remains that there is nothing on record, which could show that the notice of enquiry was ever given to the Respondent. An enquiry, without notice to the person whose conduct is being enquired, is no enquiry. On that ground alone, we think there was just reason to interfere with the order that was based upon acceptance of the enquiry officer. That having been done by the judgment and order under appeal by the learned Single Judge of this Court, while allowing the writ petition challenging the order of punishment based upon acceptance of the enquiry report, we find that there is no scope of interference with the judgment and order under appeal. However, in a situation where the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated by reason of technical default of non-compliance of principles of natural justice, it is settled law that the disciplinary authority must be permitted to complete the enquiry by taking steps, as are required to be taken from the stage the disciplinary proceeding stood vitiated. We, accordingly, modify the order under appeal by permitting the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings, in relation to the charges contained in the said chargesheet dated 4.7.2000, by permitting the Respondent to give a reply to the chargesheet by asking the disciplinary authority to handover a copy of the said chargesheet to learned Counsel for the Respondent appearing before us, within a period of 15 days from today, which handing over shall be deemed of service of the chargesheet upon the Respondent. The Respondent shall be entitled to give a reply to the chargesheet, as quickly as possible, from the date of handing over the charge sheet, as directed above, but not later than one month there from. The Respondent shall, leaving aside all his work, make himself present before the disciplinary authority, namely, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar at his office on 19.9.2011 at 11:00 AM, when the disciplinary authority shall handover to the Respondent, a copy of the letter, by which he would be appointing the enquiry officer, with a direction upon the enquiry officer to hold his first sitting on a date to be fixed by him in the letter of appointment. It shall be obligatory on the part of the Respondent to appear before the enquiry officer on the date, so to be fixed. Inasmuch as, the Respondent is retiring soon, it is hoped and expected that the disciplinary authority shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings at an early date. It is made clear that we have not interfered with the directions contained in the order under appeal pertaining to reinstatement of the Respondent in service with all consequential service benefits.