Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1417 (RAJ)

S. L. Gupta v. LIC

2004-09-29

GOVIND MATHUR

body2004
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioner by this writ petition is seeking a writ in the nature of certorari to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under the charge-sheet dated 21.08.1990 (Annexure 1). The petitioner has also assailed the validity and propriety of the report of Inquiring Authority dated 14.06.1993, a notice to show-cause pertaining to the proposed punishment dated 30.08.1993 and the order dated 111.1993 whereby a punishment of removal was imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jaipur. A penalty of removal was imposed upon the petitioner while exercising the powers under Regulations 39(i) of the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff ) Regulations, 1960 (Hereinafter referred as the Regulations of 1960.) 2. While holding the post of Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation (Hereinafter to be referred as the LIC) the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.08.1990 alleging the breach of regulations 21 and 24 read with Regulation 39(i) of the Regulations of 1960. The petitioner by the charge-sheet dated 21.08.1990 was charged for four allegations. The petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet, under communication dated 10.1990 and 28.02.1991 made request to the disciplinary authority to supply copies of certain documents to file an effective explanation to the charges levelled against him. According to the petitioner, neither he was supplied with the documents demanded nor he was permitted to inspect the same. The disciplinary authority by the order dated 27.04.1991 appointed an Inquiry Officer to adjudicate the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer commenced the inquiry on 112.1991. 3. On 03.08.1992 the Presenting Officer submitted 16 documents sought to be relied by the LIC to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner on 011.1992 denied the allegations levelled against him. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer instructed the Presenting Officer to put-forth his points pertaining to the documents placed on record on 02.08.1992. The petitioner admitted the documents produced by the Presenting Officer, however, request was made by him to instruct the Presenting Officer to produce copies of 12 documents which according to him were essential to prove his innocence. According to the petitioner copies of some of the documents were supplied to him but most of the documents were not given to him by the Presenting Officer. According to the petitioner copies of some of the documents were supplied to him but most of the documents were not given to him by the Presenting Officer. The petitioner as well as the Presenting Officer submitted written arguments to the Inquiry Officer on 14.06.1993 and 20.05.1993 respectively. 4. A notice dated 30.08.1993 containing proposed punishment alongwith a copy of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer dated 14.06.1993 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to submit his representation with regard to the proposed punishment and the findings given by the Inquiry Officer. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner was found guilty for allegations No. 1 and 4 respectively levelled against him under the charge sheet dated 21.08.1990. 5. The petitioner on receiving the notice dated 30.08.1993 preferred a writ petition before this Court invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction to restrain the respondents to impose any punishment upon him as a consequence of the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the charge-sheet dated 21.08.1990. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner under an apprehension that he may be removed from services arbitrarily and without adhereing the principles of natural justice as well as the procedure prescribed under the Regulations of 1960. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was registered as SBCW P.No. 5525/1993 and the same was rejected by the order dated 17.09.1993, being premature. The Court while rejecting the writ petitions left is open for the petitioner to approach the Court in case need arises after passing the order by the disciplinary authority. .6. The petitioner after dismissal of the writ petition submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice dated 30.08.1993. The reply filed by the petitioner is on record as Annexure 14. The petitioner in reply to notice to show-cause dated 30.08.1993 raised various objections with regard to the validity of the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner summarised his grievances under three heads. Those are : 1. Objection in respect of denial of opportunity of defence. 2. Objection in respect of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the agreement of the disciplinary authority in this regard; and 3.Objection pertaining to the proposed punishment i.e. of removal. The petitioner summarised his grievances under three heads. Those are : 1. Objection in respect of denial of opportunity of defence. 2. Objection in respect of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the agreement of the disciplinary authority in this regard; and 3.Objection pertaining to the proposed punishment i.e. of removal. Under the first head the petitioner stated that : .(i) Theinquiry suffers from violations of principles of fair play and natural justice, as copy of the preliminary inquiry report and the documents relied upon to frame charges were not given to him. He was also not permitted to inspect the documents. This failed him in defending himself effectively. .(ii) TheInquiry Officer was appointed even prior to submission of explanation to the charges which proves biasness on the part of the disciplinary authority. (iii) The contents of the documents Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 16 were not proved, as such there was no legal evidence available on record against him. (iv) The documents demanded by him to defend himself were not supplied to him, though the same were found relevant by the Inquiry Officer for adjudication of the charges levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer adduced the delinquent employee to submit his arguments without insisting for supply of the documents. 7. The petitioner under the second head also raised various objections. The petitioner stated in the reply that (i) the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence; (ii) the Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the possibility of controversy of getting a living person in collusion with the staff of LIC; (iii) no motive of ill-will was alleged even by the Corporation. 8. The petitioner also raised objections with regard to the proposed punishment to the effect that he served the Corporation for 30 years with unblemished record and a sympathetic view is required to be taken when he is at the verge of retirement. The petitioner also stated that no loss was caused to the Corporation, as such the proposed punishment i.e. of removal was shockingly disproportionate than the delinquency alleged. 9. The disciplinary authority by order dated 111.1993 while exercising the powers under Regulation 39(i) of the Regulations of 1960 ordered to impose a punishment of removal upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred the present writ petition. .10. 9. The disciplinary authority by order dated 111.1993 while exercising the powers under Regulation 39(i) of the Regulations of 1960 ordered to impose a punishment of removal upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred the present writ petition. .10. By an order dated 01.02.1994 this Court pleased to admit the writ petition for hearing. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation on the date of hearing of the petition i.e. on 14th September, 2004 stating therein that the petitioner was alleged for the charges of serious nature and .the Inquiry Officer after holding inquiry in accordance with the rules and in conformity with the principles of natural justice found the petitioner guilty of charges No.1 and 4. The disciplinary authority being in agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer after giving an opportunity to show-cause to the delinquent employee and with full application of mind to the material available on record, exercised the powers vested with it under Regulation 39 of the Regulations of 1960 and passed the order dated 111.1993 imposing the penalty of removal. The respondents alongwith the reply also placed on record copies of the documents Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 16 which were placed by the Presenting Officer before the Inquiry Officer to substantiate the allegations, for which the petitioner was charged. The respondents also stated that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to non-supply of the documents said to be demanded by the petitioner. .11. Heard the Counsel for both the parties. Shri Rajendra Prasad, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the validity of the order impugned on following counts:- .(i) The order impugned does not disclose application of mind by the disciplinary authority as the same is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The disciplinary authority also failed to record its own findings and conclusions, though the inquiry was conducted by the officer other than him. .(ii) Theentire inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the copies of the documents which were relevants for proper adjudication of the charges levelled against the petitioner, were not supplied and the petitioner was also not allowed to inspect the same. This caused a great prejudice to the delinquent employee and he failed to defend himself effectively. This caused a great prejudice to the delinquent employee and he failed to defend himself effectively. .(iii) TheInquiry Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority even prior to submission of the statement of defence, that clearly shows the biasness on the part of the disciplinary authority; .(iv) The order passed by the disciplinary authority and the report of the Inquiry Officer deserves to be quashed and set-aside being perverse as the findings given, are not supported by any evidence. As such the present one is a case of no evidence. The contention in this regard is that the documents placed on record, though were admitted by the petitioner but the contents of the documents were not at all proved by authors of those documents or by any other relevant person. .(v) The punishment imposed upon the petitioner i.e. of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the delinquencies proved. 12. As stated above the first contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is absolutely a non-speaking and unreasoned order; that it does not disclose the application of mind by the disciplinary authority; and that the disciplinary authority failed to record its own findings against the conclusion reached and against the charges said to be proved. Shri Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for the petitioner emphatically stated that mere agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer without recording reasons for the same is not only insufficient but is illegal too. He has further submitted that the requirement of Regulation 39(1)(2) of the Regulations of 1960 is also that the disciplinary authority must pass a speaking and reasoned order. According to him the order dated 111.1993 is also not in conformity with the provisions of Regulation 39(1)(2) of the Regulations of 1960. 13. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents Shri N.K. Maloo while defending the order dated 111.1993 emphasised that being an order of concurrence with the findings of the Inquiry Officer there was no necessity for the disciplinary authority to support the conclusions with reasons while imposing the punishment. He has further stated that the order impugned was imposed as a consequence of fair inquiry and after considering the entire material available on record and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, were found proved on the basis of the documents which are placed on record alongwith the reply. He has further stated that the order impugned was imposed as a consequence of fair inquiry and after considering the entire material available on record and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, were found proved on the basis of the documents which are placed on record alongwith the reply. Shri Maloo specifically pointed out the documents which were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to find the petitioner guilty for the charges No. 1 and 4. The Counsel for the respondents travelled with the contents of the documents to emphasise that even it is assumed that the order impugned does not contain reasons even then the same will not be an order bad in the eye of law, as the allegations appear to be proved by the perusal of the documents also. 14. In view of the contentions stated above the question for consideration before the Court is whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority is required to be reasoned order where a major punishment is imposed in concurrence with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer and after giving opportunity to show-cause against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and with regard to the provisional punishment? .15. In normal course a speaking and reasoned order is required to be passed by every quasi judicial authority as it is a cardinal principle of rule of law. The action of the disciplinary authority is quasi judicial by nature, therefore, in order to enable the delinquent employee to know the reasons which weighed in the mind of the disciplinary authority in determining the guilt the order with reasons in support to the findings and conclusions is must. However, in the present case the stand taken by the respondents is that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is in concurrence to the findings given by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report which is having sufficient reasons, therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority .need not to be a reasoned one. However, in the present case the stand taken by the respondents is that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is in concurrence to the findings given by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report which is having sufficient reasons, therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority .need not to be a reasoned one. Honble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 1987 (Supp) SCC 582, held that when the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the inquiring authority and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the Inquiry Officer and give the same reasons for the findings. 16. In the instant case I am to see as to whether the above principles can be applied in the present set of facts. Honble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 , held that the inquiry report is an adverse material if the Inquiry Officer records a findings of guilty and with proposed punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned. In a quasi judicial inquiry if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is being available to the disciplinary authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion rules of natural justice would be affected. In view of this position of law the inquiry report wherein an employee is found guilty, is adverse material to the delinquent employee. In the present case also the inquiry report alongwith the notice to show-cause was given to the petitioner as an adverse material and the petitioner was required to meet the same by submitting a reply. The petitioner submitted a reply to the disciplinary authority and raised various objections with regard to denial of opportunity of defence and also with regard to the findings of the Inquiry Officer. As I stated above that in the light of the law laid-down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (Supra) the inquiry report is an adverse material. Therefore, the agreements to the findings by the disciplinary authority was tentative. The disciplinary authority after receiving the order and comments by the delinquent employee is always required to reach at its own findings and conclusions. Ramzan Khans case (Supra) the inquiry report is an adverse material. Therefore, the agreements to the findings by the disciplinary authority was tentative. The disciplinary authority after receiving the order and comments by the delinquent employee is always required to reach at its own findings and conclusions. The disciplinary authority is under an obligation to deal with the objections raised by the employee and he is required to prescribe findings and conclusions supported by the reasons. In a case where a copy of the inquiry report is supplied to a delinquent employee with a notice to show-cause with regard to proposed punishment, the principle laid-down in the case of Ram Kumars case (Supra) cannot be applied. These are not the case of agreement with the findings of Inquiry Officer but in these cases the inquiry report itself has been treated as an adverse material, as such it is all the more necessary for the disciplinary authority to record reasons in support of his findings and conclusions. 17. In the light of the decision above, the validity of the order dated 111.1993 is required to be examined. The order dated 111.1993 does not contain any reason, the same is cryptic as it from no angle satisfies the cardinal rule of law that the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities must be reasoned and speaking orders. Therefore, the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice being non-speaking and unreasoned order. It nowhere disclose the application of mind by disciplinary authority. 18. The validity of the order dated 111.1993 can further be examined at the scale of provisions of Regulation 39(1)(2) of the Regulations of 1960. The Regulation 39(1)(2) reads as under :-"39. Therefore, the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice being non-speaking and unreasoned order. It nowhere disclose the application of mind by disciplinary authority. 18. The validity of the order dated 111.1993 can further be examined at the scale of provisions of Regulation 39(1)(2) of the Regulations of 1960. The Regulation 39(1)(2) reads as under :-"39. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, (any one or more of) the following penalties for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed (by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule I) on an employee who commits a breach of regulations of the Corporation, or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, or conflicting with the instructions or who commits a breach of discipline, or is guilty of any other oct prejudicial to good conduct- .(a) censure; .(b) withholding of one or more increments either permanently or for a specified period; .(c) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders; .(d) reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; .(e) compulsory retirement; .(f) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; .(g) dismissal. .(2) No order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in Clauses (b) to (c) of Sub-regulation (1) supra, shall be passed by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule I without the charge or charges being communicated to him in writing and without his having been given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such charge or charges and of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him." 19. The scheme of Regulations of 1960 puts an embargo upon the disciplinary authority to impose punishment for good and sufficient reasons and these reasons are required to be communicated to the employee concerned. In other words the requirement of the Regulation 39 is that the disciplinary authority must record good and sufficient reasons in support of its conclusion while imposing a punishment upon an employee. No such reasons are available in the order dated 111.1993. The order dated 111.1993, therefore, on this count also deserves to be declared illegal. In other words the requirement of the Regulation 39 is that the disciplinary authority must record good and sufficient reasons in support of its conclusion while imposing a punishment upon an employee. No such reasons are available in the order dated 111.1993. The order dated 111.1993, therefore, on this count also deserves to be declared illegal. 20. As I have already held the order dated 111.1993 bad being an unreasoned and non-speaking order, I do not consider it appropriate to deal with the other contentions raised by the petitioner as these questions are required to be dealt with by the disciplinary authority if it decides to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in view of the order made hereinafter. 21. In the light of whatever stated above the order impugned dated 111.1993 is hereby declared illegal and the same is quashed and set-aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits. The costs are made easy.