LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, LUCKNOW versus RAM PRAKASH SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 275 : 2025 INSC 555 State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh (Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024) 23 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether, in pursuance of a purported enquiry where there was none to present the case of the department, no witness was examined in support of the charges and no document was formally proved, any order of punishment could validly be made; whether the disciplinary authority was justified in placing reliance on a report of enquiry prepared by the Enquiry Officer who had looked into documents which were not provided to the respondent and had arrived at findings of guilt only on the basis of the charge- sheet, the reply thereto of the respondent and such documents; whether failure or omission or neglect of the disciplinary authority to furnish the enquiry report had the effect of vitiating the enquiry; whether the enquiry not having been completed within the time stipulated by the Tribunal in its order dated 23rd January, 2014, the disciplinary proceedings could have been continued beyond May, 2014; whether, and if at all, the appellant should be granted one more opportunity to conclude the enquiry against the respondent within the time to be stipulated by this Court. Headnotes† U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – r.9(4) – Civil Service Regulations – Art. 351-A – According to the appellant, the respondent had engaged in embezzlement of panchayat funds – High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal (Tribunal) whereby it had set aside the order of punishment imposing on the respondent a penalty of Rs.10.25 lakh with 5% reduction in pension for five years – Whether on facts, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in disregard of the 1999 Rules – Respondent, if * Author 276 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports was punished by the disciplinary authority without due process being followed in taking disciplinary action against him: Held: Yes – Impugned order of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity, upheld – Enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in clear disregard of the 1999 Rules relating to conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the appellant – After the first round of litigation before the Tribunal leading to quashing of the order of dismissal, the Enquiry officer could not have repeated the same mistake by not calling witnesses to record their oral statements as well as to prove the documents generated in course of the preliminary enquiry – Respondent was thus, punished by the disciplinary authority without due process being followed in taking disciplinary action against him – Further, there was blatant disregard by the appellant of not only principles of natural justice and the judicial command in B. Karunakar’s case by not furnishing the enquiry report but also by not following the applicable statutory rule – Therefore, the enquiry was wholly vitiated – Furthermore, the enquiry not having been completed within the time stipulated by the Tribunal in its order dtd. 23.01.2014, the disciplinary proceedings could not have been continued beyond May, 2014 – Thus, without an extension of time, no order of punishment could have been validly made – Lastly, the appellant despite being given an opportunity to proceed in accordance with law failed to utilise such opportunity – Tribunal and the High Court were justified in not granting one more opportunity to the appellant to resume proceedings from the stage invalidity in the proceedings was detected – Respondent entitled to full retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation without deduction. [Paras 9, 10, 59, 64, 71, 72] Disciplinary action for misconduct – Departmental Enquiry – Non-service of Enquiry report – Right to receive the enquiry report fundamental safeguard in disciplinary proceedings – Test of prejudice – What is the effect and impact of non- furnishing the report of enquiry by the disciplinary authority to a delinquent employee before he is punished; Does he have to plead and prove ‘prejudice’; Is it in all or specific circumstances that the courts would insist on the delinquent employee to demonstrate ‘prejudice’; Is furnishing of the report of enquiry merely a p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.