Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 578 (ALL)

Anees Ahmad v. State of U P

2025-04-03

AJAY BHANOT

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Sri Vikas Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sushil Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 recovery of Rs. 1,12,281.28/- has been directed to be made from the petitioner. 3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for various acts of misconduct. The gravamen of the misconduct in the chargesheet dated 18.02.2016 was that the petitioner was responsible for storage loss in the concerned go-down. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner had failed to tender his defence/reply to the show cause. According to the enquiry report non submission of the reply in itself was sufficient to establish that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and had nothing further to say. On this cryptic basis the enquiry report found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct he was charged with. 4. The impugned order dated 17.03.2017 indicted the petitioner for the storage discrepancies and financial loss entirely on the foot of the said enquiry report. Accordingly he was liable to make good the financial losses suffered by the respondent corporation. The recovery of the said amount was thus ordered to be made from the petitioner by the impugned order. 5. The appellate authority by the order dated 06.03.2019 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 6. The enquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority. The enquiry officer is under the obligation of law to independently examine the evidences adduced by the department and return findings thereupon, even if the delinquent employee fails to tender his defence in the enquiry proceedings. Failure of the charged employee to cooperate in the enquiry or absence of his defence version in the enquiry proceedings does not absolve the enquiry officer of the said duty to appraise the departmental evidence and find whether the charges have been brought home against the delinquent official. 7. The discussion has the benefit of authorities. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 has held as under: "An inquiry officer acting in 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/ Government. 7. The discussion has the benefit of authorities. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 has held as under: "An inquiry officer acting in 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/ Government. 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. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents." "When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service." (emphasis added) 8. The same view was taken in similar facts in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank , (2009) 2 SCC 570 where the Supreme Court said:- "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." 9. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." 9. In the facts of this case there has been a failure of the enquiry officer to accord independent consideration to the departmental evidence in the record. Further specific findings that the departmental evidence in the record is sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty are absent in the enquiry report. The enquiry officer abdicated his legal obligations. The enquiry report is accordingly held to be vitiated. The disciplinary authority erred in law by relying on the enquiry report which was vitiated ab initio. 10. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is in the teeth of law laid down in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) and Roop Singh Negi (supra). 11. The appellate authority failed to redeem the errors committed by the disciplinary authority in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner without lawful basis. 12. Both the impugned orders dated 17.03.2017 and the appellate order dated 06.03.2019 are liable to be set aside and are set aside. 13. The writ petition is allowed. 14. The matter is remitted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The proceedings so initiated as per law shall be concluded within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.