Supreme Court of India
Satyendra Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 November, 2024
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
2024 INSC 873 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 29758 of 2018)
SATYENDRA SINGH .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal arises from the judgment dated 30th July,
2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, allowing the Writ Petition preferred by the
respondents and setting aside the judgment dated 5th June, 2015
passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow1, whereby,
the Tribunal had allowed the Claim Petition2 preferred by the
appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2024.11.18
16:43:51 IST
Reason:
1 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘Tribunal’
2 Claim Petition No. 1931 of 2014
1
Brief facts:-
3. The appellant, while being posted as Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Khand-13, Ghaziabad faced
disciplinary proceedings in furtherance of a charge sheet dated 5th
March, 2012. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and
submitted an Inquiry Report dated 29th November, 2012. The
Disciplinary Authority being the Principal Secretary, Tax
Registration Department, Lucknow, U.P., issued a Show Cause
Notice accompanied with the Inquiry Report to the appellant. The
appellant submitted his reply/objections to the said Show Cause
Notice. The Disciplinary Authority, considered the reply of the
appellant and issued the Order dated 5th November, 2014, whereby
it awarded the punishment of Censure Entry as well as stoppage
of two grade increments with cumulative effect to the appellant.
4. The appellant challenged the order imposing penalty by filing
the Claim Petition3 before the Tribunal which allowed the same
vide order dated 5th June, 2015; thereby, quashing the order dated
5th November, 2014 and directed that the appellant shall be
entitled to all consequential benefits. While allowing the Claim
Petition, the Tribunal came to the following conclusions: –
3 Supra note 2.
2
“ While going through the record available on the file it
becomes clear that the Inquiry Officer proved the charges
against the petitioner merely, on the basis of conclusion of
the verification report prepared under Deputy Collector
and the Additional Commissioner, Grade-1, Commercial
Tax, Agra Zone, Agra. The delinquent officer was not involved
in the inquiry. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation to
the show cause notice but when we go through the punishment
order and the explanation submitted by the petitioner against
the show cause notice, we find that proper analysis and
deliberation was not done by the opp.(sic) parties to assess
the role of the petitioner in the episode.
The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the relevant
charges can be safely termed as irrational. No reasons have
been given for recording those findings. The Inquiry Officer
has recorded cryptic findings and concluded that the
charges are proved without rationalizing those conclusions.
Hence it is a fit case where the Tribunal should interfere.
We may also add here that this is not a case of procedural
irregularity, and we do not propose to interfere with the order
of the disciplinary authority on the ground of procedural
irregularity.
….
On the basis of the discussion attempted in the preceding
para we are fully convinced that the Inquiry Officer and the
Disciplinary have recorded irrational findings on relevant
charges.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. The State/disciplinary authority assailed the order4 passed
by the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition5 which was allowed vide
judgment dated 30th July, 2018 and the order passed by the
Tribunal was set aside thereby reaffirming the order issued by the
disciplinary authority which had imposed penalty. The appellant
4 Dated 5th June, 2015.
5 Writ Petition No. 6850(S/B) of 2015
3
herein has assailed the judgment dated 30th July, 2018 passed by
the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction by preferring this
appeal by special leave.
Submission on behalf the appellant: –
6. Learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the
inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross
dereliction of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 19996. The disciplinary
proceedings were initiated and allegations constituting major
penalty were proposed by Inquiry Officer. Since the appellant had
emphatically denied the charges, it was incumbent upon the
Inquiry Officer to have recorded evidence to establish the charges
attributed to the appellant. However, admittedly, not a single
witness was examined by the Inquiry Officer to bring home the
charges, and thus, the inquiry report is non est in the eyes of law.
He, therefore, urged that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in
quashing the inquiry proceedings and the order imposing penalty
vide order dated 5th June, 2015 and that the High Court fell in
grave error of law whilst allowing the writ petition and reversing
the order passed by the Tribunal. He, therefore, implored the
6 Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Rules of 1999’
4
Court to accept the appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the
High Court and restore the order passed by the Tribunal.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State:-
7. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the State
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the appellant. He contended that the appellant
did not seriously challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the
Inquiry Report. The reply submitted by the appellant was
considered by the Disciplinary Authority and after due application
of mind, the Disciplinary Authority passed a well-reasoned Order
dated 5th November, 2014 imposing the penalty afore-stated
against the appellant. He submitted that the High Court exercised
the jurisdiction conferred upon it by virtue of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by proper consideration of the material
available on record and hence, this Court should not interfere with
the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the
impugned judgments and the material available on record.
5
Discussion and Conclusion:-
9. There is no dispute amongst the parties that penalty which
has been imposed upon the appellant is a major penalty as defined
in the Rules of 1999. In Rule 37 of the Rules of 1999, under the
head of major penalty, the first Sub-Rule refers to withholding of
increments with cumulative effect.
10. Therefore, Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 which prescribes the
procedure for imposing major penalty would be applicable in the
inquiry to be conducted against the appellant to bring home the
charges imputed to him.
11. Rule 7 (vii)8 of the Rules of 1999, clearly stipulates that where
a Government servant denies the charge, the Inquiry Officer shall
7 3. Penalties
….
Major Penalties
(i) Withholding of increments with cumulative effect;
(ii) Reduction to a lower post or grade time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale;
(iii) Removal from the service which does not disqualify form future employment;
(iv) Dismissal from the service which disqualify from future employment.
Explanation- The following shall not amount to penalty within the meaning of this rule,
namely:
(i) Withholding of increment of a Government Servant for failure to pass a
departmental examination or for failure to fulfil any other condition in accordance
with the rules or orders governing the service;
(ii) Stoppage at the efficiency bar in the time scale of pay on account of ones not being
found fit to cross the efficiency bar;
(iii) Reversion of a person appointed to probation to the service during or at the end of
the period of probation in accordance with the terms of appointment or the rules
and orders governing such probation.
(iv) Termination of the service of a person appointed on probation during or at the end
of period of probation in accordance with the term of the service or the rules and
order governing such probation.
87-Procedure for imposing major penalties- Before imposing any major penalty on a
Government Servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner:
…
6
proceed to call the witness proposed in the charge sheet and recordtheir oral evidence in the presence of the charged Government
servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such
witness. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer
shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged
Government servant desires in his written statement to be
produced in his defence. Hence, recording of oral evidence in
support of charges against Government servant is a mandate
under of Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, when the
inquiry being conducted proposes imposition of a major penalty.
12. Learned counsel for the State was ad idem to the submissions
of the appellant’s counsel that no witness whatsoever was
examined during the course of the inquiry proceedings. On a
minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than
referring to the documents pursuant to the so-called irregular
transactions constituting the basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry
Officer failed to record the evidence of even a single witness in
order to establish the charges against the appellant.
(vii) Where the charged Government Servant denies the charge the Inquiry Officer
shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral
evidence in presence of the charge Government Servant who shall be given
opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences,
the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged
Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence.
7
13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the
recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing
charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this
regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank
and Others9 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and
Another.10
14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi11, this Court held that mere
production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary
evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant
extract thereof reads as under: –
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-
judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-
judicial function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The
enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking
into consideration the materials brought on record by the
parties. The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer against all the
accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove
the said documents. The management witnesses merely
tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof.
Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR
which could not have been treated as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence
whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was
the purported confession made by the appellant before the
police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the
said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The
appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession
should have been proved. Some evidence should have been
9 (2009) 2 SCC 570
10 (2013) 4 SCC 301
11 Supra note 9.
8
brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing
the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct
evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of
the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up
his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have
proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such
a manner that no evidence was left.
…
19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent
in Narinder Mohan Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry
report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same
was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant
therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition
questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same
was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like
forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of
the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in
the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be
arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence
on record. …”
(emphasis supplied)
15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj
Kumar Sinha,12 wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte
inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence
presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The
relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha13 are as
follows: –
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in
the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed
to be a representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to examine the12 (2010) 2 SCC 772
13 Ibid.
9
evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence
of the delinquent official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges
are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has
not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been proved, and could
not have been taken into consideration to conclude that
the charges have been proved against the respondents.
….
33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the
respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be
relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard
as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the
enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been
examined in support of the charges levelled against the
respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed
that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been
conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural
justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never
had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an
explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala14, this Court held that
evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a
regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the
opportunity to cross-examine persons examined in preliminary
inquiry is not given. Relevant extract thereof reads as under: –
“42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu
Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992] , held that
the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a
particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding
a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the
alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the
findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of
punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view
as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the
delinquent is required to be held.
14 Supra note 10.
10
43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of
India [AIR 1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court
while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should
not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry
is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte,
for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though
usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought
from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at
that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely
for the satisfaction of the Government as to whether a regular
inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under : (AIR p.
1862, para 12)
“12. … There must therefore be no confusion between
the two enquiries and it is only when the government
proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the
purpose of inflicting on the government servant one
of the three major punishments indicated in Article
311 that the government servant is entitled to the
protection of that article [, nor prior to that].”
44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of
Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR
1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt with the issue and held as
under:
“… a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the
enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The
preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether
disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the
delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the
Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its
importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was
held strictly in accordance with law or by observing
principles of natural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no
consequence.”
45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence
recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular
inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and
opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in
such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be
violative of the principles of natural justice.
(emphasis supplied)
11
17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record
the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having
tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules
of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of
Roop Singh Negi15 and Nirmala J. Jhala16, we are of the firm
view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant
pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally
vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence
whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the
charges.
18. As a consequence, thereof, the High Court fell into grave error
of law while interfering in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by
the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the order
imposing penalty upon the appellant.
19. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 30th July, 2018 is
hereby quashed and set aside and the order dated 5th June, 2015
rendered by the Public Service Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh is restored.
The appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits.
15 Supra note 9.
16 Supra note 10.
12
20. The monetary benefit flowing from this order shall be paid to
the appellant within a period of two months from today, failing
which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.
21. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….……….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
November 18, 2024
13