JAGMOHAN Vs. STATE OF U. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the SubDivisional Officer, Koraon, District Prayagraj dtd. 16/4/2024, punishing the petitioner, a Lekhpal, after holding disciplinary proceedings and the further order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koraon, Prayagraj dtd. 30/4/2024, modifying the last mentioned order. By the order dtd. 16/4/2024, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were concluded, punishing the petitioner by reducing him to his basic pay. In addition, it was directed that the petitioner would not be entitled to any emoluments during the period that he remained out of service on account of dismissal from service earlier ordered and since set aside by the State Public Services Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') with liberty to hold a fresh inquiry. The modification of the order dtd. 16/4/2024 came, because pending proceedings the employee has superannuated.

(2.) The facts, giving rise to this petition, make a sordid reading and convinces this Court that come what may, the Disciplinary Authorities in various departments of the Government, who are Administrative Officers, cannot appreciate the essentials of valid procedure to hold a departmental inquiry on a charge against an employee, which may lead to the imposition of a major penalty. They would not understand what Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, 'the Rules of 1999') requires of the establishment in proving charges against a delinquent/ charge-sheeted employee, facing charges, that may lead to the imposition of a major penalty. This we say because the law in this regard has been laid down authoritatively across more than two decades, which holds that in all major penalty matters charges have to be proved by production of evidence in the first instance by the employer, which would include both oral and documentary evidence. The Inquiry Officer cannot return findings by merely reading the charge-sheet and the charge-sheeted employee's reply. Documentary evidence has to be led by the establishment, together with the production of witnesses to prove the charges in the first instance. It is not that the charge-sheeted employee is to be presumed guilty of the charges and after perusing his reply, which is not found satisfactory, sans evidence by the establishment, held guilty. The guilt can be proved upon following the procedure of holding an inquiry, consistent with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, where the Inquiry Officer sits as a Tribunal and the establishment bear the burden of proving the charges in the first instance by producing documentary evidence and witnesses with opportunity to the charge-sheeted employee to cross-examine such witnesses. That is the salutary procedure for any valid inquiry to be held in a major penalty matter.

(3.) We would presently refer to authority on the point. Howsoever high and consistent authority may there be, excluding any other possible course of action, experience dictates that Administrative Authorities, acting as Disciplinary Authorities, would not give up the practice of presuming a charge-sheeted employee guilty by reading the charge-sheet, where the charges are regarded true, and then, look into the reply to find out if a plausible explanation, consistent with the charge-sheeted employee's innocence, has come forth. This is the approach which Disciplinary Authorities across the State in various establishments, including the Government, adopt and we are convinced that they would not give it up. When we refer to authority on the point, its age and consistency, it would leave no one in doubt that the principles there are consistently observed in breach. In this case, as in almost all others, a mere reference to the authority, followed by a quashing of the order on that ground, may not suffice. Something more would have to be done to compel Disciplinary Authorities in various establishments of the State to ensure that the procedural law, regarding the holding of a valid inquiry, in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 or salutary procedure in regard to such inquiries, involving the imposition of a major penalty, is followed. Enforcement of the settled law in this regard would spare unnecessary harassment to the employees facing inquiry and avoidable expenditure to the State. How and why this Court has remarked in the terms indicated above, would be apparent from the facts of this case, that would be presently referred to.