Before :- R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 10929 of 2013. D/d. 3.12.2019.
State of Uttar Pradesh, Thr. Its Secretary Revenue & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Radhey Shyam - Respondents
For the Appellants :- Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Ms. Jahnvi Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Pradeep Kumar Arya, Anshul Malik, Prateek Singh, Ashwyn Kalra, Gaurav Chaudhary, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocates.
ORDER
Hrishikesh Roy, J. - This appeal is filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh to challenge the judgment and order dated 15.05.2012 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO.2942 of 2007 whereunder the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the Order of dismissal dated 23.06.2006 (passed by the District Magistrate) and also the appellate Order dated 06.11.2006 approving the disciplinary action passed by the Commissioner. The High Court further issued direction for reinstatement of the respondent in service within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed by it.
2. The respondent joined service with the State Government in the year 1976 and faced disciplinary action at a stage when he was serving as a Chief Revenue Accountant in District Etawah, Uttar Pradesh. He was suspended on 2.2.2006 and the disciplinary action was initiated on the grounds that respondent was disobeying his superiors, not conducting official duties properly and making false allegation against higher officers. On 23.2.2006 charge memo was issued against the delinquent officer and he was, inter alia, charged with misconduct, illegal gratification, negligence of High Court proceedings, baseless allegation against superior officers etc.
3. In course of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent asked for certain documents for his defence but the same could not be provided to him. Learned Judge accordingly concluded that prejudice was caused to the respondent for non-disclosure of the documents which would have facilitated the delinquent employee to defend the charges levelled against him. The Court also referred to the violation of the UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") in conducting the Disciplinary Proceeding. With such finding, it was concluded by the learned Judge that the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings. He was also not allowed to show cause on the proposed penalty. Consequently, the rules of natural justice were violated and on that basis, the High Court interfered with the disciplinary action and ordered for reinstatement of the respondent.
4. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that the charge sheet issued to the respondent contained the supporting documents relatable to the charges and the absence of the details of the supporting documents at the end of the charge sheet cannot be construed as non-disclosure of the supporting documents. According to the Government Counsel, the respondent cannot insist on supply or production of all kinds of documents and the required documents must obviously be relevant and material, for the defence of the delinquent. Accordingly, Mr. Agarwal argues that the High Court committed an error by concluding that required documents were not supplied without considering the relevancy of those documents. The appellant would also contend that the respondent wanted to delay the disciplinary proceedings on the pretext of non-supply of documents and in fact he avoided the service of notice/documents.
5. Per contra, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the documents requested by the respondent were very necessary for an effective response to the charge sheet but notwithstanding, the repeated requests for supply of the relevant documents, those were denied to the delinquent. According to the respondent, the charges levelled against him were trivial in nature and those could not have been the basis for imposing the penalty of dismissal. According to Mr. Arya, the disciplinary proceedings was conducted by disregarding the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules.
6. In matters where the Court concluded that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice the High Court should have remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary authority for conducting the proceedings from the stage at which the breach had occurred by directing furnishing of relevant documents to the delinquent employee. In the instant case, the High Court however decided to quash the disciplinary proceedings and ordered for reinstatement of the respondent.
7. In a case of this nature where the respondent has reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.2009 and ten years have passed by, we feel that to direct continuation of the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of the breach, would not be fair to the retired person.
8. In any case, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instruction from his client, submits that the respondent is not claiming any arrear/wages but would be satisfied if his due retirement/pension benefits are released on the strength of the order passed by the High Court directing the reinstatement of the respondent.
9. Having regard to the above circumstances and more particularly the fact that the respondent has superannuated on 31.01.2009 and the dismissal order was passed against him on 23.06.2006 which was interfered by the High court on 15.05.2012, we feel that the matter deserves closure and recommencement of the Disciplinary Proceeding would cause injustice. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Appellants to grant notional continuity of service till the date of retirement of the respondent;
(ii) Notional fixation of the salary should be made to enable the respondent to receive his superannuated dues corresponding to the salary payable on the date of respondent's superannuation/retirement i.e. 31.01.2009;
(iii) The terminal pensionary benefits payable to the respondent should be worked out and be remitted to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order;
(iv) The respondent shall not be entitled to any backwages in monetary terms, on account of the order passed by the High Court or by this Court, from the dismissal date i.e. 23.06.2006 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2009.
10. The above order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and may not be quoted as a precedent in future cases.
