Mandatory To Record Evidence Of Witnesses For Proving Charges Even In An Ex-Parte Disciplinary Inquiry Proceedings: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that it is mandatory to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving charges even in ex-parte inquiry proceedings.
The Court quashed the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court and restored the Order of the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal in favour of the Appellant. The Court held that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the Appellant were “vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.”
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.”
AOR Christopher Dsouza represented the Appellant, while AOR Bhakti Vardhan Singh appeared for the Respondents.
This case arose from the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant while he was serving as an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax. The disciplinary authority had imposed the penalties of Censure Entry and stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect, based on an Inquiry Report.
The Appellant challenged the penalty imposed on him by filing Claim Petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the Petition, quashed the Penalty Order and directed that the Appellant be entitled to all consequential benefits. The Tribunal concluded that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were irrational, cryptic, and lacked proper reasoning.
The disciplinary authority, however, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which upheld the penalty imposed on the Appellant. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the same is violative of the principles of natural justice.
The Court referred to its decision in Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat (2013) wherein it was held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. “In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 30th July, 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order dated 5th June, 2015 rendered by the Public Service Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh is restored. The appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Satyendra Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 873)