Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Kumar Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 9 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048247-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:048247-DB
(116) LPA-813-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 09.04.2024
Amit Kumar Yadav .......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-3961-
2024, whereby he refused to quash the inquiry report dated 05.12.2023
(Annexure P-7), whereby adverse findings have been recorded against the
appellant.
Counsel for the appellant has tried to convince us that the Inquiry
Officer had proceeded with haste as such and enough effective opportunities
were not given to produce his defence and also to cross-examine the
departmental witnesses.
The learned Single Judge has noticed the fact that the appellant
was involved in FIR No.1 dated 04.01.2022 which was registered against him
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while working as
Naib Tehsildar. Keeping in view his arrest on 18.01.2022, he was suspended
on 20.01.2022 and, thereafter, granted bail on 15.03.2022, after the challan had
been submitted. The necessary charge-sheet as such was issued on 19.09.2022
(Annexure P-2) under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048247-DB
Appeal) Rules, 2016 and, thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed on
12.06.2023 (Annexure P-3). The learned Single Judge has relied upon the
principle that interference in the disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The
inquiry report had already been submitted by the Inquiry Officer and it is for
the punishing authority to take a call, since comments had already been
submitted. Resultantly he also rejected the prayer that the disciplinary
proceedings be kept in abeyance, keeping in view the law which is cited in the
judgment of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416 and Eastern Coalfields Limited and others
vs. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, 2022 (12) SCC 390. Resultantly, it was noticed
that witnesses had already been examined and the writ petitioner had failed to
participate in the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte. It was noticed that
the appellant had been allowed to take the assitance of an Advocate by the
department as to hold free and fair inquiry and he had got the proceedings
adjourned on one pretext and other raising a plea of ill health. In such
circumstances, the learned Single Judge did not interfere.
We are of the considered opinion that the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. It is settled principle that
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Court will not take
over the role of the Inquiry Officer, specially keeping in view the fact that
there is no malafide as such alleged on any of the superior officers, since only
the Inquiry Officer has been arrayed as a party. Reliance can be placed upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna, 2001
(2) SCC 330, wherein it was held as under:
"There must be a positive evidence available on record in order
to decry an administrative action on the ground of malafides and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048247-DB
arbitrariness. The ill will or spite must be well pronounced and without
which it would be not only unfair but patently not in confirmity with
the known principles of law. On a scrutiny of the files as presented to
court and the evidence thereon, unfortunately, however, there is no
evidence apart from bare allegation of any spite or ill will, more so by
reason of the fact that the same involves factual element, in the
absence of which no credence can be attributed thereto. Incidentally,
be it noted that submissions in support of the appeal have been rather
elaborate and in detail but a significant part of which pertain to the
issuance of the two notifications spoken hereinabove: the High Court
decried the action as being tainted with malice and quashed the
chargesheet as being mala fide."
A perusal of the inquiry report would also go on to show that the
inquiry proceedings were concluded by a Chief Engineer (Retd.) from
UHBVN, who had been appointed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue &
Addl.Chief Secretary to Government. The first date was fixed as 01.08.2023
by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the matter had been adjourned to
11.08.2023 and then to 23.08.2023. On 11.09.2023 the absence of the
appellant was there and ex parte proceedings were initiated against him and
statement of one witness Rajesh Kumar was recorded.
The cross-examination was deferred with liberty to file an
application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. On 03.10.2023, the
appellant had appeared and statement of one Nawal Kishore, Inspector (Retd.)
had been recorded. The cross-examination had been deferred on the request of
the charged officer and the matter was fixed for 25.10.2023. On the said date
on account of the alleged poor health, the appellant did not put in appearance
and, thereafter, did not put in appearance, which led to the finalization of
inquiry report on 05.12.2023. The above sequence of events goes on to show
that it is a calculative effort to ensure that the inquiry report be not completed
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048247-DB
at the earliest so that action cannot be taken against the government servant
who has been charged with allegations of serious misconduct.
Resultantly, keeping in view the settled law, there is no ground to
interfere in the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge and the appeal
is hereby dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
09.04.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI)
Naveen JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
