Court should not preclude the Employer from Holding the Inquiry once Court set aside an order of Punishment for Improper Enquiry: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the court should not preclude the employer from holding the inquiry once the court set aside an order of punishment for improper enquiry.
Court Observation
The division bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that it is not disputed that no evidence was led by the department to prove the misconduct against the respondent. In the absence of any proof of misconduct, the order of punishment of dismissal from service was rightly interfered with by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court.
The court noted that the allegation against the respondent is of absence from duty for more than 327 days which was made the basis for issuing the chargesheet.
The court further noted that even after the charge sheet was served, the respondent failed to participate in the departmental proceedings or to join duties.
Background
The challenge in the appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the State against the order of the State Public Service Tribunal was dismissed.
The respondent was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by order. The departmental appeal against the said order was dismissed and the revision was also dismissed.
The appeal preferred by the respondent before the State Public Service Tribunal was allowed on the ground that no inquiry was conducted after the employee was chargesheeted. Thus, it is a case of no evidence of misconduct. The order of punishment was passed for the reason that the delinquent has chosen not to appear in the departmental proceedings.
Decision
The court reiterated that once the Court set aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law.
The court added that it must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law.
The court while citing the case of ECIL v. B. Karunakar, stated that if the Court finds that furnishing of the enquiry report would have made a difference to the result, in such case it should set aside the order of punishment. Where the Court sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief which should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report.
The court remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to conduct the departmental proceedings from the stage prior to the order of punishment.
The court ordered that the period from the date of the order of punishment till the consequent action after the fresh proceedings shall be decided after the disciplinary proceedings are concluded.
The court directed the disciplinary authority to complete the inquiry from the stage prior to the order of punishment passed against the respondent.
Case title: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v/s Prabhat Kumar
Citation: Civil Appeal No.1567/2019
