UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR TANDON

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 855

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH

Case summary

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR TANDON.pdf

Judgment text

i [2008] 17 S. C. R. 855 '~ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... _i' v. PRAKASH KUMAR TANDON (Civil Appeal No. 7349 of 2008) DECEMBER 17, 2008 [S. B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ. ] ... Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings - Application for summoning qf witness by delinquent employee not considered by Enquiry officer - Justification of- Held: Not justified - It was obligatory on part of Enquiry officer to pass an order in the application - He could not refuse to consider the same - Enquiry officer, being a quasi judicial authority, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of principles of natural justice - If disciplinary proceedings was not fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn that the delinquent employee was prejudiced thereby- Establishment Code of Indian Railways, Vol I - Chapter V, para 3 - Principles of natural justice.

Disciplinary proceedings - Initiated after raid conducted by Vigilance Department - Appointment of the Chief, Vigilance Department as Enquiry officer - Propriety of- Held: Not proper - It was unfair to the delinquent employee. Respondent was working in the Department of - t Railways as Inspector, Works. Charge-sheet was issued against him on the premise that he accepted substandard wood. Respondent gave written letter requesting the Inquiry Officer to summon one 'B' as ,a witness. 'B' was an Assistant Engineer purportedly responsible for quality of wood. The Inquiry Offic~r ignored the letter of respondent. In the disciplinary '"'(' proceedings, respondent was found guilty and as penalty, his pay was reduced. Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty by further reducing the pay. Respondent filed application before the Tribunal inter alia contending. that since 'B' was not examined as a +~ witness, the order imposing penalty was unsustainable. Tribunal allowed the application.

Writ petition filed by Appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. The disciplinary proceedings were ,>· initiated after a raid was conducted by the Vigilance Department. The enquiry officer was the Chief of the Vigilance Department. He evidently being from the Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to the delinquent officer, should not have been appointed as an enquiry officer at all. [Para 14] (861-G] 1. 2. In any event, the Tribunal as also the High Court cannot be sa·id to· have erred in holding that 'B' should have been examined as a witness. The Central Railway Administration as far back as on 3-4-1990 had issued a clarification stating that woodwork shall continue to be passed by Asst. Engineer. (Paras 12 and 16] (861-A, DJ 1. 3. The principles of natural justice demand that an applica. tion for summoning a witness. by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer.

It was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said application. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether 'r any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An enquiry. officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn th~t the delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby.

Though over TANDON the years, the principle of natural justice has been watered down but in a situation of this nature, the ~-r concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference. [Paras 17, 19 and 20) [862-C-D-H; 863-A-B] 8 M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88 and S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 S -·' conducted by the Disciplinary Authority itself or he may get ;. ,. the same done through an agency of his choice. The choice is confined either to a Board or a named Officer. The procedure in all cases is to be in accordance with t_hat laid down in Rule 1709 ante. " 4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed for holding the said disciplinary enquiry. He was a· Chief Engineer being on deputation to the Vigilance Department. Whereas the appointing authority of the respondent was of the rank of District Railway Manager, the.

Disciplinary authority is only a Senior Executive Engineer. The District Railway Manager of Railways is ~lso the appellate authority. 5. Before the disciplinary proceedings commenced, respondent, indisputably by a letter dated 20. 2. 1996 requested the Inquiry Officer to summon the Assistant Engineer Mr. B. S. Walia, stating : "You will be kind enough to fi? , allowances are permitted for measurement of 'scantlings and planks'. • r . 16. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the. opinion that the Tribunal as also the High Court cannot be said to have erred in holding that the said Mr. Walia should have been examined as a witness. 17. The principles of natural justice demand that an application for summoning a witness by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory ir on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said application. He could not refuse to consider the same.

It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to ... consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An enquiry 0 officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and r~asonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice. t 18. In M. V. Bij/ani v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 88], this Court has held : "Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i. e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that '\ the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on. record.

While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any '" irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with. " ,.... 19. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly ·~ conducted, an inference can be drawn that the d,elinquent officer was prejudiced thereby. A 20. In S. L Kapoorv. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 379, this Court has held that non-compliance of the principles of natural justice itself causes prejudice. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said principle has since been watered down but in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that the 8 concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference. 21.

The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. C 8. 8. 8. Appeal dismissed.