Allowed

Harendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2019WRIA/37250/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a departmental penalty and recovery order. The Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with an Inquiry Officer's report exonering the petitioner without recording reasons or giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court held the procedure illegal under natural justice and set aside the recovery order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of recovery dated 18.08.2004 is set aside.

Harendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37250 of 2004

¶4

Petitioner :- Harendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Radha Kant Ojha, Prasoon Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Shri Kant Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shri Kant Shukla, learned counsel for respondent-2 and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P.

¶7

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 18.08.2004 passed by Managing Director, U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Limited, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Authority”) whereby recovery of Rs. 1,39,130/- from petitioner has been ordered.

¶8

It is submitted that enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer found that there was no error or misconduct on the part of employees for causing loss as there was no demand in the market and in this regard, Regional Manager submitted report dated 19.07.2002 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Disciplinary Authority disagreed with said report, passed punishment order without recording its own findings of guilt and reasons for disagreement. The same having not been done, there was no occasion to communicate the same to petitioner giving opportunity to reply and, therefore, entire procedure followed by Disciplinary Authority is patently illegal and in utter violation of principle of natural justice.

¶9

Whenever Inquiry Officer finds charges not proved and Disciplinary Authority proposes to take an otherwise view, law is well settled that Disciplinary Authority must record its reasons for disagreement and finding of guilt showing that charge is proved.

¶10

¶11

Thereafter opportunity is to be given to delinquent employee to make representation against such finding of Disciplinary Authority and only then it is empowered to pass appropriate order. If this procedure has not been followed, punishment order cannot be sustained.

¶12

The findings of disagreement consists a material which is arrived subsequently i.e. after inquiry by inquiring authority is over, therefore, it is incumbent upon him to communicate the said findings to the employee concerned. 7. This aspect was initially considered by Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84 and following Constitution Bench judgement in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727, it was held that when inquiry officer holds the charges proved then that report has to be given to delinquent officer who can make a representation before disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the inquiry report is in favour of delinquent officer but disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions then that authority which is deciding against delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would stand condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the findings of the disciplinary authority and, therefore, whenever disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its final findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings of disagreement will have to be conveyed and delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade disciplinary authority to accept favourable conclusion of inquiry officer and not to proceed with his tentative findings which are contrary to the report of inquiry officer.

¶13

¶14

It was held by a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Kunj Behari Misra (supra) that non compliance of the above procedure would vitiate the proceedings. This has been followed consistently in Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, AIR 1999 SC 3734; SBI & others Vs. Arvind K. Shukla, JT 2001 (4) SC 415; State Bank of India & others Vs. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, 2003 (2) SCC 449; and Ranjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2006(4) SCC 153 .

¶15

In the present case, the report submitted by Regional Manager was clearly in favour of petitioner holding that there was no misconduct on his part but Disciplinary Authority took a different view, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to follow procedure as discussed above and since it has not been done, impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained.

¶16

In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.08.2004, insofar as it relates to recovery from petitioner, is hereby set aside.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.12.2019 Siddhant Sahu

Harendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Kant Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kamakshi Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Afsar Khan Vs Nideshak Alp Sankhyak Kalyan U.P. and Ors.

Z.G.V.A. Vs Presiding Officer State Govt. and Another

Satya Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others