Priyanka Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 29773 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206022
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18080 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Madhaw Pandey,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14th March, 2023 whereby he has been awarded minimum pay scale for a period of one year on the basis of the recommendation made by the inquiry officer.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority has simply acted upon the recommendation of the inquiry officer in giving a show cause notice to the petitioner of the proposed punishment which was recommended by the inquiry officer which could not have been done under the law. He submits that the domain of the inquiry officer is to furnish the inquiry report after evaluating the evidence adduced before it by the department as also by the delinquent employee. Inquiry officer can only hold the delinquent employee guilty of the charges. After the inquiry report is submitted, it lies next within the domain of the disciplinary authority to look into the report and to either concur with the findings of the inquiry report or take otherwise view. In the event disciplinary authority concurs with the findings of the inquiry officer, a show cause of the proposed punishment would be issued to the delinquent employee inviting his objection/reply.

4. In the instant case, it is submitted that after the inquiry officer submitted his report on 15th December, 2022, in which he had also made a recommendation for the punishment of minimum pay scale for a period of one year in respect of petitioner and so a show cause notice got issued on 19th January, 2023.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Haneef Khan vs. State of UP in Service Single No.314 of 2010 decided on 3rd April, 2017 in which vide paragraphs 11, 12, & 13, the Court has held thus:

"11. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that absence was not without any valid reason and that has been discredited by Inquiry Officer arbitrarily and without considering relevant material, therefore, entire proceedings are vitiated in law. He placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364.

12. Second, it is submitted that manifest illegality committed by Inquiry Officer in recommending punishment of dismissal in its inquiry report itself and that too by looking into past record of petitioner, which was not a charge. In this regard he referred to Appendix I read with Rule 14(1) of "U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991" (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1991"). Aforesaid provision permits Inquiry Officer to make his recommendation regarding punishment. It reads as under:

"APPENDIX-I

PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POLICE OFFICER

Upon institution of a formal enquiry such police officer against whom the enquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form I appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the charged police officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged police officer of the facts and circumstances against whim. he shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in, in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charged police officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish:

Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer."

13. This aspect has already considered in State of Uttranchal and others Vs. Kharak Singh, 2008(8) SCC 236 and Court has held, if in inquiry report, punishment is also recommended by Inquiry Officer, it is a grave illegality for the reason that appropriate punishment is the exclusive jurisdiction of punishing or disciplinary authority and Inquiry Officer's only job is to enquire, whether charge levelled against delinquent employee is proved or not."

6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, submits that in the show cause notice though the respondents concurs with the findings but certain more discussion has taken place while countering with the findings of the inquiry officer, and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no independent application of mind.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, I find that after the inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer, he held the petitioner guilty of charges vide finding part of report but at the same time in the concluding part, he made a recommendation to the effect that in view of Paragraph 481 of the Police Regulations read with Rule 4(1)a(ii) of the UP Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the petitioner be removed from service.

8. What is interesting to notice is that the inquiry officer not only recommends the proposed punishment but also records that it will be operative with the approval of the authority. It, therefore, transpires as if the inquiry officer was robed with the power of disciplinary authority in making recommendation and passing orders.

9. The finding part as to the proposed punishment by the inquiry officer is reproduced as under:

"??????? ????????/???????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ????, ???????? (??) ?? ??????? ????-???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ????, ???????? (??)/ ???? ?????, ?????????? ?????? ?????, ????????, ??????, ???? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ???????????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ????, ???????? (??)/???? ?????, ?????????? ?????? ?????, ????????, ??????, ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? (???? ??? ????) ????????-1991 ?? ????-4 (1) (?) (???) ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ???????? 01 ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???"

10. It is, thus, quite apparent that even if the a show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority but the manner in which the report was submitted cannot be approved of and so there left no room for discretion to be exercised by the disciplinary authority in view of the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court (supra).

11. This petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed by quashing the only recommendation part of the inquiry officer's report dated.

12. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 14th March, 2023 is also hereby quashed. Part of the inquiry report dated 15th December, 2022 to the extent it makes recommendation is also quashed. Consequences to follow.

13. Matter is remitted to the stage of report of the inquiry officer.

14. It will be open for the disciplinary authority now to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner to invite objection /reply and thereafter disciplinary authority shall proceed afresh in the matter to pass order.

15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition stands allowed.

Order Date :- 28.10.2023

Atmesh