Failure To Follow Procedure During Disciplinary Inquiry Raises Concerns About Validity Of Punishment Order: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order imposing punishment on a Civil Judge (J.D.) observing that failure to follow procedure during inquiry raises concerns about the validity of the punishment order.
The Court noted that gross procedural irregularities have occurred in the disciplinary proceedings leading to the punishment order. It emphasised that principle of natural justice that demands the fair and transparent disciplinary proceedings must be adhered to in order to ensure just outcome, has been completely violated.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition that questioned the impugned punishment order and the inquiry report with a consequential direction to release increments to the petitioner which have been withheld by the respondents since 2018.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, “Failure to follow procedural requirements during the inquiry stage, raises a serious concern about the validity of the punishment order. The disciplinary process must be carried out in a manner that allows the affected parties to present their case, respond to the allegations and have a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The departmental proceedings are quasi judicial one. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with.”
Advocate Akhilesh Singh appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Ashish Mishra appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner was a newly appointed Civil Judge (J.D.) at District Mau. A complaint led to an inquiry, during which the petitioner was accused of accepting a Facebook friend request from an unknown woman and engaging in inappropriate conversations. Despite being exonerated from the main charge, the inquiry officer noted the petitioner's actions were against judicial norms after which a notice and inquiry report were issued to which the petitioner submitted a reply. The petitioner challenges the order on grounds that the inquiry procedure under the Rules, 1999 was not followed and the punishment was issued without proper reasoning despite his exoneration from the main charges.
The Court said that the High Courts under 226 of the Constitution dealing with such matters under judicial review, are entitled to consider whether while inferring the commission of misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer, relevant pieces of evidence were taken into consideration by excluding the irrelevant facts.
“Inference on facts to be based on evidence, which meet requirement of legal principles, the disciplinary authority was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise of evidence adduced by the authority.”, the Court added.
The Court noted that without the complainant's appearance and evidence to substantiate her complaint, or any other evidence proving the charges against the petitioner, the inquiry officer had no grounds to make adverse observations against the petitioner based on the FIR allegations made by him against the complainant.
The Court further observed, “Issuance of a reasoned order is essential not only to justify the decision taken but to enable the affected party to understand the basis for punishment made out…”
Accordingly, the Court said that the petitioner is justified in seeking quashing of the punishment orders.
Finally, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Nyaydhish Pankaj v. Allahabad High Court & Another. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:88051-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Akhilesh Singh, Adv. Jeetendra Kumar Yadav, Adv. Kumar Parikshit and Adv. Shivam Yadav
Respondent: Adv. Ashish Mishra and Adv. Chandan Sharma
