LexSATYENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1634 : 2024 INSC 873 Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 12509 of 2024) 18 November 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory? Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross violation of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and is non-est in law. Headnotes† Appeal against disciplinary penalty – Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Rule 7(3) – Appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, was subject to disciplinary proceedings in 2012 – Disciplinary Authority in 2014, awarded punishment of Censure Entry along with stoppage of two grade increments – Appellant challenged the order imposing penalty before the State Public Services Tribunal – Tribunal quashed the penalty order and granted consequential benefits – High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority: Held: Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999 clearly stipulates that in instances where a charge is denied by a Government servant, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witness proposed in the charge sheet and record their oral evidence in the presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witness – Post recording evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desires in his written statement to * Author [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1635 Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. be produced in his defence – Thus, recording of oral evidence in support of charges against Government servant is a mandate under of Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, when the inquiry being conducted proposes imposition of a major penalty – It has been duly established from the record that the Inquiry Officer proceeded merely on the basis of a perusal of documents pursuant to the irregular transactions and on the basis of the verification report without recording the evidence of a single witness – Even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges – Further, the State was ad idem to the submissions on behalf of the appellant that no witness was examined during the course of the inquiry proceedings – Having tested the facts of the case on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999 and law in cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, in the absence of any examination of the witnesses thereof, the inquiry proceedings were non-est in the eyes of the law. [Para 11, 12, 17] Case Law Cited Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others [2008] 17 SCR 1476 : (2009) 2 SCC 570; Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another [2013] 5 SCR 200 : (2013) 4 SCC 301; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [2010] 2 SCR 326 : (2010) 2 SCC 772 – relied on. List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. List of Keywords Government Servant; Major Penalty; Disciplinary proceedings; Recording evidence; Examination of witness. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12509 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SB No. 6850 of 2016 1636 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., V. Pattabhiram, Christopher Dsouza, Advs. for the Appellant. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal arises from the judgment dated 30th July, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowing the Writ Petition preferred by the respondents and setting aside the judgment dated 5th June, 2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow,1 whereby, the Tribunal had allowed the Claim Petition2 preferred by the appellant. Brief facts:- 3. The appellant, while being posted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Khand-13, Ghaziabad faced disciplinary proceedings in furtherance of a charge sheet dated 5th March, 2012. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted an Inquiry
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.