Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Lucknow & Ors. vs Vijay Kumar Yadav & Anr.
- SCC(2022) 1 SCC 113
- Neutral2021 INSC 778
- SCR[2021] 7 SCR 432
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a disciplinary authority disagrees with an Enquiry Officer's finding that a particular charge of causing financial loss has been proved, it must issue notice to the employee and provide an opportunity to be heard on the disagreement before proceeding to impose a punishment order. If the disciplinary authority fails to do so and proceeds directly to pass a punishment order disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's finding on a proved charge, such order is vitiated by violation of natural justice and principles of procedural fairness. However, where an Enquiry Officer has found a charge proved and the Disciplinary Authority does not dispute that finding, the punishment order relating to that particular proved charge must be upheld even if other charges held not proved by the Enquiry Officer are set aside due to procedural defects in the Disciplinary Authority's handling of the disagreement on those charges.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Lucknow & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Vijay Kumar Yadav & Anr. …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No.54718 of 2005, Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Lucknow and others have preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 03.07.2019, this Court issued notice limited to the extent as to whether the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56, which was also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer.
1
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in so far as the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56, it was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. However, there was disagreement on the part of the Disciplinary Authority so far as other charges, which were held to be not proved by the Enquiry Officer and without issuing any notice on the said disagreement, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded further and passed the punishment order, which was held to be bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, once the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56 was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56.
5. In view of the above, we modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to the extent of maintaining the order of punishment for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56 for the charge which was also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. It is reported that the respondent employee has since retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, whatever further amount is due and payable towards the retirement benefits, which may be available under the law, the same may be paid to the respondent after making recovery/deducting Rs.2,46,922.56.
2
6. Present appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2021. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free