Enquiry Officer Acting As Quasi Judicial Authority Is Independent Adjudicator, Not Representative Of Disciplinary Authority: Patna HC
The Patna High Court observed that the enquiry officer who is acting as a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent authority and is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition that challenged the order of punishment which forfeited 5 per cent of pension. The Petitioner was seeking directions to the respondents to pay the arrears towards pension.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha observed, “An inquiry officer acting as a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved.”
Senior Advocate Shivendra Kishore appeared for the Appellant and AC to AAG Akash Raj appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the petitioner that while serving as Headmistress she was involved in a legal case initiated by an employee, which led to a Supreme Court order directing the payment of back wages with 9% interest. Despite various directives from the District Education Officer to ensure payment, the petitioner Could not facilitate full payment as he faced delays due to administrative issues, but eventually facilitated full payment. Later, upon his retirement, a departmental proceeding was initiated against her for alleged dereliction of duty. The petitioner argued that post-retirement, the employer-employee relationship had ended, making the initiation and conversion of proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules illegal and without jurisdiction.
The Court said that the order of punishment vitiates as violative of principles of natural justice after noting that the second show cause and copy of the enquiry report were not communicated/served upon the petitioner.
The Court further said that the Enquiry Officer has merely submitted the enquiry report on his ipse dixit without examining the witnesses and only considering the comment of the Presenting Officer and the defence submitted upon the charges by the petitioner.
According to the Court, the enquiry was conducted in gross violation of established procedure and is violative of principles of natural justice.
The Court said that the entire enquiry as well as the departmental proceeding got vitiated.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the enquiry report as well as the order of punishment.
Finally, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.
