LexMOHD. YUNUS KHAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 448 A MOHD. YUNUS KHAN B V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8349 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.) Service Law - Termination - On ground of misconduct - Uttar Pradesh Police - Appellant, Guard Commander, c found absent from duty for 25 minutes - Punishment drill for 10 days imposed - Protest by appellant - Punishment enhanced to confinement in cell for ten days - Appellant refused to serve the enhanced punishment - Disciplinary proceedings initiated by Commandant concerned - He D appointed his own subordinate as the inquiry officer and himself appeared as a witness in the enquiry - Inquiry officer recommended removal of appellant and accordingly the Commandant terminated the service of appellant :- Appellate Authority upheld the order of termination - Tribunal upheld E the order of termination - Writ petition dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held - Held: The order of punishment stood vitiated - Absence of appellant from duty as Guard Commander for 25 minutes was bona fide and permissible under the statutory rules - Imposition of punishment for the said absence was unwarranted - Protest against the F imposition of the said punishment could not warrant enhancement of punishment by the Commandant concerned - Consequently, disobedience of the enhanced punishment could not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Commandant - The Commandant could not become a G Judge in his own cause and could not appoint his own subordinate as the inquiry officer- The Ptf9ishment order was passed in violation of statutory rules and the principles of natural justice as well, and hence rendered null and void - H 448 MOHD. YUNUS KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 449 Directions issued to meet the ends of justice - Uttar Pradesh A Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rules 13 and 14(1). Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Bias - Authority who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the 8 employee became a witness before the inquiry officer appointed by him, who was subordinate to him in his office and also accepted the enquiry report and passed the order of punishment - Justification of - Held: Not justified - Such a course is not permissible in law - Natural justice - Violation C of Service Law - Punishment - Past conduct - Relevance of - Held: Past conduct of an employee should not generally be taken into account to substantiate the quantum of punishment without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent D employee. Maxims - Maxim "nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" (no man shall be a judge in his own cause). The appellant was posted with 30th Battalion PAC in G-Company. While on duty as Guard Commander, the appellant left his post and came back after 25 minutes after having tea and medicine in the canteen. The Dal Nayak endorsed his comments in respect of the appellant's absence for the period of 25 minutes and placed it before the Commandant concerned. The Commandant imposed the punishment of 10 days punishment drill. Upon protest by the appellant, the Commandant enhanced the punishment to 10 days confinement in a cell. The appellant refused to serve the G punishment, which was considered to be a serious act E F of indiscipline and he was placed under suspension. The appellant was served with a chargesheet indicating that an enquiry was to be held against him under Rule 14(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate H 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 12 S.C.R. A Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The inquiry officer concluded the enquiry and submitted report that the appellant was guilty of negligence and disobedience and recommended his removal from service. Consequently, the Commandant passed order imposing B the punishment of termination from service. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority while justifying the order of termination took into consideration the past conduct of the appellant. The appellant filed claim c petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said Claim Petition recording the finding that the absence from duty for 25 minutes was bona fide and permissible under Rule 21 of the Guard and Escort Rules, however, not obeying the order of punishment was a case of gross 0 indisciplin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.