Service Law – Findings recorded by Inquiry Officer – Interference – Scope – Appellant appointed as Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship was later transferred and posted as Process Server however, was being paid the salary of Ardly – Aggrieved, appellant made representations – Appellant was subjected to departmental inquiry on charges of misconduct, insubordination alleging that he used inappropriate, derogatory and objectional language and made false allegations against various higher officials; and had sent the representations directly to the High Court and Chief Minister/Minister without routing the same through proper channel – Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the appellant were established – Appellant dismissed – Dismissal upheld by High Court – Correctness: Held: Finding of making false statement and allegation in his representation not borne out from the record – Since, this finding is the fulcrum of the reasoning to hold that charge no.1 is proved, this finding in the inquiry report is perverse – Ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court – However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered – Further, Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed – Impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order terminating the appellant from service, set aside – Appellant reinstated with all consequential benefits. [Paras 9, 11-13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.