THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. versus RAJIT SINGH

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 22-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 790
790
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
v.
RAJIT SINGH
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-2050 of 2022)
MARCH 22, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service law: Misconduct – Financial irregularity –
Disciplinary proceedings – Doctrine of equality – Applicability of
– In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer held the delinquent officer
(respondent) guilty for misconduct alleged and charges levelled
against him of causing monetary loss to the extent of Rs.
22,48,964.42/- and other charges, which were held to be proved –
Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment after giving respondent
opportunity to meet the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer –
Tribunal set aside order of punishment by mainly applying the
Doctrine of Equality and observing that as other officers involved
in the incident were exonerated and/or no action was taken against
them, therefore, no action was warranted against respondent also
– Tribunal also observed that even otherwise, enquiry proceedings
were in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as relevant
documents mentioned in charge sheet were not at all supplied to the
respondent – High Court upheld the order of Tribunal – On appeal,
held: The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been applied when
the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority held the charges
proved against the respondent – The role of the each individual
officer even with respect to the same misconduct is required to be
considered in light of their duties of office – Merely because some
other officers involved in the incident were exonerated and/or no
action is taken against other officers cannot be a ground to set
aside the order of punishment when the charges against respondent
were held to be proved in departmental enquiry – There cannot be
any claim of negative equality in such case – Further, once it is
found that the enquiry was not conducted properly and/or the same
was in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court ought
to remand the matter to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority
to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791
principles of natural justice and not reinstate the employee –
Therefore, in the facts of instant case, Tribunal and High Court
ought to have remanded the matter to Disciplinary Authority to
conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated – Matter
remanded to Disciplinary Authority to conduct fresh enquiry from
the stage it stood vitiated i.e. after the issuance of the charge sheet
and to proceed further with the enquiry after furnishing all the
necessary documents mentioned in the chargesheet and after
following due principles of natural justice.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to Disciplinary
Authority, the Court
HELD: 1. The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been
applied when the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority
held the charges proved against the delinquent officer. The role
of the each individual officer even with respect to the same
misconduct is required to be considered in light of their duties of
office. Even otherwise, merely because some other officers
involved in the incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken
against other officers cannot be a ground to set aside the order
of punishment when the charges against the individual concerned
- delinquent officer are held to be proved in a departmental
enquiry. There cannot be any claim of negative equality in such
cases. [Para 7][795-F-G]
2. The Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings
were against the principles of natural justice in as much as the
documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied
to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in
a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly
and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice,
in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such
and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/
Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from
the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed
and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the
necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are
alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer.
[Para 8][796-A-C]
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. v. RAJIT SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPRE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.