Service Law: Reinstatement – Respondent functioning as Postal Assistant – Charge of misconduct – Authorising payments of commission under the NSC Scheme to agents who were found to be fake – Charges were essentially based on the failure to verify the bills which had been submitted by so-called NSC agents and the failure to make entries of payment in the ledger – Receipts were found to be prepared in the names of fake agents as a result of which payment of NSC commission in the amount of Rs.6.65 lakhs was wrongfully made – Inquiry officer found that charges were proved/partially proved against respondent – Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of reduction of pay of five years – Appellate Authority ordered dismissal from service – However, Tribunal set aside both the orders and restored the proceedings to the Disciplinary Authority with liberty to issue notice to show cause to respondent and after allowing him opportunity of submitting representation to arrive at final decision – After order of Tribunal, a notice to show cause was issued to respondent – Disciplinary Authority found that charges were proved against the respondent which warranted dismissal from service – The said findings were upheld by Appellate Authority – Tribunal dismissed OA by respondent – However, High Court directed reinstatement of respondent on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and vitiation of inquiry by delay following an earlier order of remand of Tribunal – High Court held that there was a failure on the part of the inquiry officer to provide documents to the respondent during the course of disciplinary inquiry and that notice was issued by Disciplinary Authority nearly eight years following the first order of Tribunal – Appeal by employer-UOI – Held: Tribunal, while dealing with the submission, came to the conclusion that the respondent was attempting to take undue advantage of the non availability of cash receipts but the payment could be verified from other records and documents which were maintained in the Head Post Office – High Court merely observed that the respondent was not provided the documents which were relied upon – High Court did not consider which documents were not supplied, the relevance of those documents to the charge of misconduct and the prejudice, if any, that resulted to the respondent by the non availability of the relevant documents – Even in the pleadings of the respondent, the plea that there was a failure to supply documents was vague and there was no reference to which specific document ought to have been made available – Tribunal restored the proceedings back to the Disciplinary Authority to enable the appellants to issue a fresh notice to show cause to the respondent and to arrive at a conclusion on the nature of the misconduct, if any, after furnishing an opportunity to the respondent of making a representation – Neither was the inquiry required to be held afresh nor was fresh evidence to be recorded – After the order of the Tribunal, a notice to show cause was issued to the respondent after eight years – But respondent had been reinstated following the order of the Tribunal setting aside the disciplinary action, pending the conclusion of the process by the Disciplinary Authority – Therefore, the delay on the part of the Disciplinary Authority in issuing a show cause notice in the first instance and in passing a final order thereafter was not a matter of any prejudice to the respondent – For the said reasons, the High Court was in error in interfering with the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the appellants – The misconduct was proved – The penalty imposed cannot be held to be disproportionate or arbitrary – High Court erred in setting aside the punishment and ordering reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. According to the Tribunal, the non availability of a particular document on the record did not make any difference to the charge of misconduct which was established by other materials which were available on the record. The High Court merely observed that the respondent was not provided the documents which were relied upon and that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Tribunal. The High Court did not consider which documents were not supplied, the relevance of those documents to the charge of misconduct and the prejudice, if any, that resulted to the respondent by the non availability of the relevant documents. In fact, in the pleadings of the respondent, the plea that there was a failure to supply documents was vague and there was no reference to which specific document ought to have been made available. Without analyzing this aspect of the case, the High Court interfered with the disciplinary jurisdiction of the appellant on a vague plea that documents were not supplied. High Court ought to have enquired into the question of prejudice. [Para 13] [536-D-F]
2. The aspect of delay must be considered in the context of the admitted facts. The inquiry had been concluded by the inquiry officer. Evidence was recorded during the course of the inquiry. The order of the disciplinary authority holding that all the three charges had been proved was without issuing a notice to the respondent on the reasons for disagreement with the report of the inquiry officer. The appellate authority enhanced the punishment without indicating adequate reasons. The Tribunal restored the proceedings back to the disciplinary authority to enable the appellants to issue a fresh notice to show cause to the respondent and to arrive at a conclusion on the nature of the misconduct, if any, after furnishing an opportunity to the respondent of making a representation. Neither was the inquiry required to be held afresh nor was fresh evidence to be recorded. After the order of the tribunal, a notice to show cause was issued to the respondent after eight years. But it must equally be noted that the respondent had been reinstated following the order of the tribunal setting aside the disciplinary action, pending the conclusion of the process by the disciplinary authority. Hence, the delay on the part of the disciplinary authority in issuing a show cause notice in the first instance and in passing a final order thereafter is not a matter of any prejudice to the respondent. In the present case, the appellants have not condoned the lapse on the part of the respondent. The delay was not a matter of prejudice. For the said reasons, the High Court was in error in interfering with the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the appellants. The misconduct was proved. The penalty which has been imposed cannot be held to be disproportionate or arbitrary. The High Court was in error in setting aside the punishment and ordering reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. [Paras 14, 16, 17] [536H; 537-A-C; 538-D-E] State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Another 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 ; State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570 : [1995] 1 SCR
695 ; State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishan (1998) 4 SCC
154 : [1998] 2 SCR 693 ; Secretary, Forest Department and Others v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury (2009) 7 SCC
305 ; Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. V. Appala Swamy (2007) 14 SCC 49 : [2007] 2 SCR 19 – referred to.
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.