Service law: Misconduct – Financial irregularity – Disciplinary proceedings – Doctrine of equality – Applicability of – In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer held the delinquent officer (respondent) guilty for misconduct alleged and charges levelled against him of causing monetary loss to the extent of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- and other charges, which were held to be proved – Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment after giving respondent opportunity to meet the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer – Tribunal set aside order of punishment by mainly applying the Doctrine of Equality and 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 – Tribunal also observed that even otherwise, enquiry proceedings were in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as relevant documents mentioned in charge sheet were not at all supplied to the respondent – High Court upheld the order of Tribunal – On appeal, held: The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been applied when the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority held the charges proved against the respondent – 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 – Merely because some other officers involved in the incident were 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 respondent were held to be proved in departmental enquiry – There cannot be any claim of negative equality in such case – Further, once it is found that the enquiry was not conducted properly and/or the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court ought to remand the matter to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice and not reinstate the employee – Therefore, in the facts of instant case, Tribunal and High Court ought to have remanded the matter to Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated – Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority to conduct 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 mentioned in the chargesheet and after following due principles of natural justice.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to Disciplinary Authority, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. [Para 7][795-F-G]
2. 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 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. [Para 8][796-A-C]
Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vs. A. Masilamani (2013) 6 SCC 530 : [2012] 11 SCR
35 – relied on.
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.