New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held
principles of "natural justice" is a Constitutional
requirement that has to be observed by government while taking
disciplinary action against him or her.
The apex court said the inquiry officer must act as a
quasi-judicial authority and not as a representative of
government while inquiry into the charges of misconduct
against them.
"Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India, the departmental inquiry has to be
conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a
basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee
be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any
proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed
on the employee.
"When a departmental inquiry is conducted against
the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual
exercise. The inquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted
with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure
that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings
which may culminate in imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service," the apex court said in a
judgement.
The apex court made the remarks while dismissing an
appeal filed by Uttar Pradesh government challenging the
Allahabad High Court's judgement directing reinstatement of an
employee Saroj Kumar Sinha.
Sinha, working as an executive engineer in the
state's Public Works Department, was sacked after being merely
served with a chargesheet.
He was sacked on December 24, 2004, on the basis of an
ex-parte inquiry conducted against him even though Sinha had
kept pleading for supply of documents to know the basis for
the chargesheet.
The High Court set aside his dismissal on the ground
that the entire proceeding was "vitiated", after which the
state government appealed in the apex court.
Dismissing the government's appeal, the apex court
said a perusal of the documents had revealed that despite
the employee's repeated pleas no documents were given to him
to enable him place his defence.
Asking the respondent (employee) to give a reply to
the inquiry report without supply of the documents is to add
insult to injury, it said.
"In our opinion, the actions of the inquiry officers
in preparing the reports ex-parte without supplying the
relevant documents has resulted in miscarriage of justice to
the respondent. The conclusion is irresistible that the
respondent has been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself in the enquiry proceedings," Justices V S Sirpurkar
and Surinder Singh Nijjar in a judgement said.
-PTI
First Published: Thursday, February 04, 2010, 00:12