Absence Of Assigning Any Reason By Disciplinary Authority On Why Dismissal Is Proper Makes It Clear The Authority Did Not Examine Charges & Its Gravity: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the reinstatement of an employee while observing that in the absence of assigning any reasons by the disciplinary authority on why the dismissal was proper made it clear that the authority did not examine the charges or its gravity.
The Court set aside the impugned dismissal order against the petitioner, an employee of the Bhopal Development Authority (BDA). The Court ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits of salary and arrears, citing the “violation of principles of natural justice” and the “non-application of mind” by the Disciplinary Authority, as the dismissal was based upon the report of Enquiry Officer without independent assessment.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, “From the impugned order, nowhere it reflects that the Disciplinary Authority has applied his own mind and has given any reason as to why the reply to the charges submitted by the petitioner is not sufficient and as such charges are found proved and the opinion of Enquiry Officer is also proper. Thus, it is clear that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting the major penalty upon the petitioner is a non-speaking order and also without application of mind as it is fully based upon the report of enquiry. Thus, in absence of assigning any reason by the Disciplinary Authority as to why the punishment of dismissal is proper to be imposed makes it clear that the said authority has not examined the charge and its gravity. In my opinion, such type of opportunity, as has been given to the petitioner, is nothing but an eyewash.”
Senior Advocate K.C. Ghildiyal appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Kapil Duggal represented the respondents.
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the dismissal of the petitioner, previously officiating as Revenue Officer, on the grounds that his suspension and subsequent dismissal orders were apparently illegal and deserved to be set aside.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s involvement and alleged collusion with a company which led to his suspension and the subsequent charge charge sheet was processed without “any witness examined by the respondents” and “no proper enquiry was held.”
The Bench observed that the Disciplinary Authority did not apply its own mind or state why the charges and Enquiry Officer’s recommendation of dismissal warranted a “major penalty,” describing the enquiry as “nothing but an eyewash.” The Court reiterated that “principles of natural justice” required the delinquent’s opportunity to address the Enquiry Officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority reaches a decision.
In reference to proportionality, the Court noted that “the scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary proceeding in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited,” yet observed that the “punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is without following any procedure established by law and is in complete violation of principles of natural justice.”
The Court set aside the dismissal orders and directed the BDA to “reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and consequential benefits.”
“In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and considering the report of enquiry, the order of Disciplinary Authority and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it can be easily inferred that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is without following any procedure established by law and it is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. It is a case of no evidence and everything is based upon the report of Enquiry Officer, who has considered the charges levelled and the reply of the charge sheet submitted by the delinquent and arrived at a conclusion by his own that the major punishment be imposed upon the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer has not followed the procedure, which is required to conduct the enquiry,” the Bench observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “Resultantly, in my opinion, the procedure adopted by the respondents inflicting the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner is purely illegal and apparently contrary to the principles of natural justice. The impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is without application of mind and perverse because it is based upon the report of Enquiry Officer and therefore it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The order of Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority are therefore liable to be set aside.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Vijay Singh Yadav v. Bhopal Development Authority & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate K.C. Ghildiyal; Advocate K.N.Fakhruddin
Respondents: Advocate Kapil Duggal