Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... vs Santosh Kumar Singh And Anr. on 11 September, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:58755-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6749 of 2023
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Singh And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for State-petitioners.
2. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.1933 of 2020 whereby the claim petition filed by the delinquent officer arising out of the punishment order passed against him on 28.11.2019 has been allowed with all consequential benefits.
3. The punishment order essentially records a censure entry coupled with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The punishment awarded to the delinquent employee certainly is a major punishment for which the procedure for imposition of major penalty was adopted in the present case.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State drawing our attention to the reasoning recorded by the learned Tribunal has argued that learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition has merely observed that the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned punishment order has failed to record any reasons in the order passed and in this manner the objections raised by the delinquent officer against the findings of the enquiry officer remained unconsidered altogether. The non-speaking order passed by the punishing authority having been found cryptic and unreasoned led to the opinion for allowing the claim petition. This according to the learned Counsel for State is erroneous. It is argued that in a situation of procedural irregularity, the Tribunal ought to have remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority.
5. The requirement to record the reasons, is a condition precedent for any order of major penalty which may be passed by the disciplinary authority. Such a lapse in normal course being a serious breach of statutory rules, cannot be condoned.
6. It is not always the case that where the disciplinary authority fails to record reasons in an order of punishment notwithstanding the fact that objections are raised by the delinquent employee against the show cause notice, such a failure in an appropriate cases, may be remitted back so as to prolong the proceedings.
7. Non-observance of a mandatory rule vitiates the action and in appropriate cases, the matters may not be remitted for rectification. It is in that light that this Court chose to have a deeper look at, the charge-sheet issued against the delinquent officer, which proceeds on the basis of a complaint. The complaint on the one hand is relied upon in support of the charge and on the other hand the same complaint is treated to be a charge-sheet.
8. The procedure for imposition of major penalty is provided under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999"). Sub rule (i) to (iii) of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 for ready reference, are extracted hereinbelow :-
"7- Procedure for imposing major penalties- Before imposing any major penalty on a Government Servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner:
(i) The Disciplinary Authority may himself inquiry into the charge or appoint an Authority Subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges.
(ii) The Facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the Disciplinary Authroity.
Provided that where the Appointing Authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, of the concerned department.
(iii) The charge framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government Servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidences and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same along with oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet."
9. When the requirement of framing the charge is viewed as per the provisions extracted above, the charge-sheet issued to the delinquent officer definitely requires application of mind by the disciplinary authority. We find that the disciplinary authority in the present case has failed to apply mind and draw the charge-sheet in the form of definite charges so as to qualify the requirement of law. The manner in which framing of charge on the complaint has proceeded in the present case, apparently, does not seem to meet the requirements of law.
10. In our humble consideration, not only that the impugned order failed to record any reasons as held by the Tribunal but having looked into a little deeper, prima facie, we notice a sessions lapse reflected on the face of the charge-sheet issued to the delinquent officer. It may be for this reason too that the learned Tribunal, while recording the reasoning, has not remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary proceedings are a measure to achieve the goal of discipline and good conduct in the discharge of public duties. Therefore, an imputation levelled regarding the discharge of duties against the charged servant must be definite, clear and unambiguous so as to qualify the document, as a charge-sheet.
11. Having gone through the material available on record and the reasoning recorded by the learned Tribunal, we are not persuaded on the strength of arguments advanced before us that the case at hand is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. The writ petition being bereft of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)
Order Date :- 11.9.2023
Shubhankar
