Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1999 (PNJ)

Karamjit Singh v. Director, Pgimer

2008-12-01

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2008
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. Karamjit Singh-the petitionerwas wording as a Class IV employee (Ward Servant) in the Library of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (hereinafter referred to as PGI MER) in the month of July, 1990. It is alleged that on the basis of a complaint dated 29.7.1990, charge- sheet was served upon the petitioner to the extent that he had assaulted Naresh Kumar, Assistant with a Saw (Aari) causing head injury and he, therefore, was alleged to have exhibited gross misconduct unbecoming of an employee of the Institute and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3(l)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner was directed to submit his written explanation in defence within a period of 10 days, but he failed to submit his explanation or defence. Dr. R.C. Mahajan, Head of the Department of Paracitomalogy was appointed as the Enquiry Officer under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC & A) Rules 1965. The enquiry officer submitted his report which was conveyed to the petitioner vide memo, dated 30/1 /1992. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating therein that on the basis of the evidence on record, the charges against the petitioner stood established. The petitioner was required to make his representation/submission on the enquiry report, copy of which was supplied to him along with the letter aforesaid. The petitioner submitted his Representation. On consideration of the records and the representation, the impugned order dated 5.8.1992 (Annexure P-6) was passed wherein the petitioner was removed from service with immediate effect. However, it was mentioned therein that his removal from service shall not be a disqualification for his future employment under the Government. On 14.9.1992, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1965 against the said order of removal to the Competent Authority i.e. the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare, being the President of the PGIMER. The decision on the said appeal was conveyed to the petitioner on 23.12.1993 vide Annexure P-12, intimating the rejection of his appeal. It is this order and the order of removal from service dated 5.8.1992 (Annexure P-6) which have been challenged by the petitioner by way of the present writ petition. 2. The decision on the said appeal was conveyed to the petitioner on 23.12.1993 vide Annexure P-12, intimating the rejection of his appeal. It is this order and the order of removal from service dated 5.8.1992 (Annexure P-6) which have been challenged by the petitioner by way of the present writ petition. 2. Upon notice having been issued, the respondents have put in appearance and filed a detailed reply supporting the impugned order dated 5.8.1992 (Annexure P-6) vide which the petitioner was removed, from service as well as the order dated 23.12.1993 (Annexure P-12) vide which the appeal of the petitioner was not accepted. It has been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner joined as Class IV (Ward Servant) in the PGI MER on 24.12.1981 and was posted in Nehru Hospital, PGI MER. The petitioner has a chequered history of absence from duty and the details of his absence from duty have been given in Para 2 of the written statement. There were many adverse remarks which are very poor. The facts as submitted by the petitioner with regard to the charge-sheet, the enquiry aridthe impugned orders along with appeal stand admitted. It is the submission of the respondents that after the complaint dated 29.7.1990 was made by Naresh Kumar, as per the report dated 7.9.1990 submitted by Dr. Inderjit Dewan, Chairman Library Committee, the petitioner had admitted before him that he had hit Naresh Kumar with the Saw (Aari) and a medical report vide Out Patient ticket No. S-170416 dated 28.7.1990 was also got done. The impugned order of removal from service has been supported by the respondents, also the decision pf the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare wherein the appeal of the petitioner was considered and rejected. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. . 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Rule 14 (48) of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 which is mandatory, has not been complied with as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to explain the circumstances brought on record against him during the enquiry. . 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Rule 14 (48) of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 which is mandatory, has not been complied with as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to explain the circumstances brought on record against him during the enquiry. It is his further submission that the non- examination of the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer has thus, prejudiced him because he has been deprived of an opportunity to explain the evidence produced against him during the departmental enquiry. The further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that Naresh Kumar who is the complainant and is a material witness was examined by the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the petitioner which is in violation of the principles of natural justice wherein he would have been given an opportunity to cross- examine the complainant, a wrong has been done to the petitioner which shows a complete denial of proper opportunity to him to defend himself. The other submission which has been putforth by the counsel for the petitioner is that the order of removal dated 5.8.1992 (Annexure P-6) is a laconic order and no reasons whatsoever have been put-forth while, ordering removal of the petitioner from service. For this, he relies upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, 1958 (SCR) 499, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1623, M.N. Bhagat vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, 1991 (3) RSJ 704, Vijey Singh Yadava vs. State of Haryana and others, 1972 LAB LC. 713 and Bhagat Raja vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1967 SC 1606. 5. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has not considered the appeal of the petitioner and has not assigned any reasons whatsoever, neither the contentions raised by.the petitioner have been considered nor decision taken thereon. Rule 27 pf the CCS (CC& A) Rules, 1965 provides for consideration of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. The requirement of the Rules itself call upon the Appellate Authority to consider all the circumstances of the case and then to pass a detailed reasoned order and the same having not been done, the impugned order dated 23.12.1993 (Annexure P-12) deserves to be quashed. The requirement of the Rules itself call upon the Appellate Authority to consider all the circumstances of the case and then to pass a detailed reasoned order and the same having not been done, the impugned order dated 23.12.1993 (Annexure P-12) deserves to be quashed. He has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. Union of India and others, 1986(2) All India Services Law Journal 249, M.S. Chauhan vs. State Bank of India and others, 1950-1988(1)RSJ 161 to buttress his submissions. 6. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the order dated 5.8.1992 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioner was removed from service itself is very clear and all circumstances leading to the passing of the order of removal from service have been mentioned therein. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner has been dealt with very leniently as it has been observed that his removal from service shall not be a disqualification for his future employment under the Government. The Director PGIMER has been lenient with the petitioner while looking at his service record and as per the misconduct which has been proved against the him, he deserves much stringent punishment He further states that when the Punishing Authority agrees with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, no detailed reasons are required to be given in the order. However, in case the Punishing Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, then the Punishing Authority is obligated to give reasons thereon. He further submits that the principles of natural justice have all through been complied with, firstly during the enquiry proceedings and thereafter on submission of the enquiry report. The said enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner calling upon his comments on the said enquiry report and it is only after the submission of the representation/comments of the petitioner that the order of punishment was passed against him. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ram Chander, 1976(2) SLR 690 in support of his contention. He further submits that the Appellate Authority. is also not required to pass a detailed order when the Appellate Authority agrees with the Punishing Authority. 7. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ram Chander, 1976(2) SLR 690 in support of his contention. He further submits that the Appellate Authority. is also not required to pass a detailed order when the Appellate Authority agrees with the Punishing Authority. 7. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that principles of natural justice have not been complied with when the evidence was recorded in the absence of the petitioner nor was he given an opportunity to explain his stand before the Enquiry Officer as per Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 are not sustainable- The records which have been produced by the counsel for the respondents, show that the petitioner was asked to attend the enquiry but had failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and therefore, Enquiry Officer was constrained to proceed with the enquiry in his absence. The petitioner was given full opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Officer and having chosen not to appear before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner cannot now turn around and say that in fact, a wrong he has been done to him by non-affording of an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The records show that Enquiry Officer proceeded as per the Rule 14 which provides for the conduct of the enquiry. It is not necessary that all the evidence has to be taken in the presence of the petitioner. When the petitioner had himself absented before the Enquiry Officer, he cannot make a grouse of the same in case the evidence was recorded in his absence. If the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is accepted then it would mean that the delinquent employee would be simply not appearing before the Enquiry Officer and would come around any time and say that the evidence recorded in his absence cannot be looked into or cannot be relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to come to a particular conclusion against him. No enquiry would be concluded in case the evidence has to be taken in the presence of the petitioner as he would simply abstain from appearing before the Enquiry Officer. This can never be the intention of the Rule nor can the principles of natural justice be extended to such an absurd extent. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. This can never be the intention of the Rule nor can the principles of natural justice be extended to such an absurd extent. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the non-compliance of Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965, the same again deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the petitioner, after having chosen not to appear before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer had no option but to proceed and decide as per the evidence produced before him and give his a finding on that basis. 8. The second contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the punishment order dated 5.8.1992 (Annexre P-6) is that a laconic order has been passed by the Punishing Authority. The petitioner was made well aware of the enquiry proceedings. He was supplied the copy of the enquiry report. A representation was called upon from the petitioner by the Punishing Authority. The order clearly depicts that the representation submitted by the petitioner was duly considered by the Punishing Authority along with enquiry report. On consideration of the records, the Punishing Authority came to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner was blame-worthy and he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. It is on coming to such a conclusion that punishment of removal from service has been ordered with immediate effect by the Punishing Authority. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner also deserves to be rejected on the ground that while accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Punishing Authority is not required to give detailed reasons or record the findings on each of the charges which have been levelled against the delinquent employee. The requirement of law is that the delinquent employee must be informed about tne report of the Enquiry Officer and the charges proved against him. Thereafter, he must be given an opportunity to put-forth his comments and objections, if any, to the findings to the said enquiry report. The requirement of law is that the delinquent employee must be informed about tne report of the Enquiry Officer and the charges proved against him. Thereafter, he must be given an opportunity to put-forth his comments and objections, if any, to the findings to the said enquiry report. The Punishing Authority is thereafter required to consider the said submissions and if it does not find any force in the representation submitted by the delinquent employee and proceeds to accept the enquiry report no reasons whatsoever for accepting the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer have to be given in the punishment order. 9. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that under Rule 23 of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965, the Appellate Authority is required to consider the appeal of the delinquent employee and having regard to the circumstances of the case and looking into the same has to come to a conclusion whether the said order of punishment is justified or not may confirm or revoke the order accordingly. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the order in appeal does not show that the appeal of the petitioner was considered by the Competent Authority as no reasons whatsoever have been assigned therein which would show application of mind or that the grounds raised by the petitioner have been considered. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.12.1993 (Annexure P-12), therefore, deserves to be quashed. A perusal of the order would show that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. 10. Counsel for the respondent also very fairly concedes that no reasons have been assigned, however, he contends that the appeal of the petitioner was duly considered by the Appellate Authority who on finding no merit therein, proceeded to reject the same. 11. In the light of the fact that the appeal was required to be duly considered by the Appellate Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case and thereafter to come to a conclusion whether the said order of punishment was justified or not, it was only then that the order of confirmation or revocation was required to be passed as per the requirement of the Rule, the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained as no reasons have been assigned therein. 12. 12. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. Order dated 23.12.1993 (Annexure P-12) is hereby quashed and a direction is issued to respondent No. 3 to consider the appeal afresh and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition partly allowed