The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Rajit Singh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2049-2050 OF 2022

The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Rajit Singh …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow

Bench in Service Bench No. 5554 of 2020 by which the High Court has

dismissed the said writ petition and has refused to set aside the order

passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to

as “Tribunal”) passed in Claim Petition No.2226 of 2017 whereby the

claim petition of the respondent employee came to be allowed and the

order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the

penalty/punishment came to be set aside, the State of Uttar Pradesh has Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.03.22 17:36:59 IST Reason:

preferred the present appeals.

1

2. That the respondent employee was serving as a Junior Engineer

at Balia. An enquiry was conducted by a Departmental Task Force

where it was found that he had committed financial irregularities causing

loss to the Government. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against

the respondent and others. The respondent was served with charge

sheet. That thereafter the Enquiry Officer held the charges alleged

against the respondent employee as proved and consequently also held

the misconduct proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of recovery

of Government loss of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- as per the rules from the

salary; temporarily stopping two salary increments and the remarks

given for the year 2017-2018.

2.1 The respondent filed a representation against the said order before

the State Government, which came to be rejected. That thereafter the

respondent filed a Claim Petition No.2226 of 2017 before the Tribunal

challenging the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority. The Tribunal allowed the said petition and quashed the

punishment mainly on the ground of Doctrine of Equality and also on the

ground that the enquiry conducted was in breach of principles of natural

justice in as much as the relevant documents mentioned in the charge

sheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer.

2 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the

Tribunal quashing and setting aside the punishment, the State preferred

the writ petition before the High court. By the impugned judgment and

order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has

refused to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. That

thereafter the State preferred Review Application No.138 of 2021 before

the High Court. The High Court has dismissed the said review

application also.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the High Court in Service Bench

No.5554 of 2020 as well as the order passed by the High Court rejecting

the review application, the State has preferred the present appeals.

3. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the State has vehemently submitted that in the present case fullest

opportunity was given to the respondent – delinquent officer by the

Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the respondent was served

with the Enquiry Report and thereafter was given the opportunity by the

Disciplinary Authority and after considering the detailed representation

by the respondent employee against the findings recorded by the

3 Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment,

which ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal.

3.1 It is further submitted that assuming that the Enquiry Proceedings

were vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, in

that case also as per the settled proposition of law, the matter ought to

have been remanded to the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary

Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of

the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that however, when it is a

case of loss to the extent of Rs. 22,48,964.42/-, that too, by the Junior

Engineer, the respondent employee cannot be permitted to let off.

3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shukla, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the State that another ground given by the

Tribunal as well as the High Court that other employees involved in

respect of the same incident were exonerated and/or no action was

taken against them, is concerned, it is submitted that on the aforesaid

ground, the Enquiry Report and the order of punishment imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority cannot be set aside. It is submitted that it depends

upon the individual role played by the concerned employee. It is

submitted that even otherwise merely because some other employees

involved in respect of the alleged misconduct might have been

exonerated and/or no action was taken against them, cannot be a

4 ground to set aside the order of punishment imposed in case of an

employee, who is found to be guilty of misconduct.

4. Shri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal as well

as the High Court.

4.1 It is submitted that considering the fact that all other officers, who

were also involved in respect of the same incident, namely, Assistant

Engineer and Executive Engineer were exonerated and therefore

applying the Doctrine of Equality, both, the Tribunal as well as the High

Court have rightly set aside the order of punishment imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority with respect to the alleged misconduct for which

other employees came to be exonerated.

4.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise, the enquiry conducted

was in total breach of principles of natural justice in as much as the

documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied to the

respondent – delinquent officer and therefore the entire departmental

enquiry proceedings were vitiated. It is submitted that therefore the

Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of punishment imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority which is rightly not interfered by the High Court.

5

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Enquiry Officer held

the respondent – delinquent officer guilty for the misconduct alleged and

the charges levelled against him of causing monetary loss to the extent

of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- and other charges, which are held to be proved.

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment after

giving the respondent opportunity to meet the findings recorded by the

Enquiry Officer and thereafter imposed the punishment. The Tribunal

set aside the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority

by mainly applying the Doctrine of Equality and by observing that as

other officers involved in the incident were exonerated and/or no action

was taken against them, therefore, no action was warranted against

respondent also. The Tribunal has also observed and held that even

otherwise, the enquiry proceedings were in breach of the principles of

natural justice in as much as the relevant documents mentioned in the

charge sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. The

order passed by the Tribunal has been confirmed by the High Court by

the impugned judgment and order.

7. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the order of

punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority applying the Doctrine

6 of Equality on the ground that other officers involved in the incident have

been exonerated and/or no action has been taken against them, is

concerned, we are of the firm view that on the aforesaid ground, the

order of punishment could not have been set aside by the Tribunal and

the High court. The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been applied

when the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority held the charges

proved against the delinquent officer. The role of the each individual

officer even with respect to the same misconduct is required to be

considered in light of their duties of office. Even otherwise, merely

because some other officers involved in the incident are exonerated

and/or no action is taken against other officers cannot be a ground to set

aside the order of punishment when the charges against the individual

concerned - delinquent officer are held to be proved in a departmental

enquiry. There cannot be any claim of negative equality in such cases.

Therefore, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a

grave error in quashing and setting aside the order of punishment

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by applying the Doctrine of

Equality.

8. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal

also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles

of natural justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the charge

sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled 7 proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not

conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of

natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as

such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary

Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of

principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be

proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned

in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the

delinquent officer in the instant case. In the case of Chairman, Life

Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6

SCC 530, which was also pressed into service on behalf of the

appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as

under:-

“16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30]).”

9. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,

it appears that when the aforesaid submission and the aforesaid

8 decision was pressed into service, the High Court has not considered

the same on the ground that the other officers involved in respect of the

same incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken against them.

Applying the law laid down in the case of A. Masilamani (supra) to the

facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as well

as the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary

Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated.

Therefore, the order passed by the High Court in not allowing further

proceedings from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the

charge sheet, is unsustainable.

10. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above,

the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the High Court quashing

and setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority by applying the Doctrine of Equality is hereby quashed and set

aside. However, as the enquiry is found to be vitiated and is found to be

in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as it is alleged

that the relevant documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not

supplied to the delinquent officer, we remand the matter to the

Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage it stood

vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet and to proceed

further with the enquiry after furnishing all the necessary documents

9 mentioned in the charge sheet and after following due principles of

natural justice. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a

period of six months from today.

Present appeals are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no

order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. MARCH 22, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

10