Title: CHATRAPAL THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(s)._______ OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11975/2019)
Date of Judgment: FEBRUARY 15, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Facts of the Case:
The present appeal before the Supreme Court of India arises from a judgment and order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 297 of 2008. The appellant, who was initially appointed on a permanent basis as Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship, was subsequently transferred and posted as a Process Server in the Nazarat of an outlying court in Baheri, District Bareilly on 24.08.2001. Upon joining the new post, the appellant found that he was being paid the remuneration of Ardly, not the appropriate salary for the position of Process Server. In 2003, the appellant made representations to various authorities, including the District Judge, regarding the discrepancy in his salary and alleged harassment by the Central Nazir demanding illegal gratification to settle his dues.
Despite the appellant’s grievances, the matter escalated when the appellant was placed under suspension by the District Judge on 21.06.2003, followed by the initiation of a departmental inquiry. The charges against the appellant included the use of inappropriate language and making false allegations against officers, as well as communicating with higher authorities without following proper channels. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges were established, leading to the appellant’s dismissal on 30.04.2007.
Subsequently, the appellant appealed the dismissal, which was dismissed by the High Court on 19.09.2007. The appellant then filed Writ Petition (C) No. 297 of 2008 before the High Court, challenging the order of dismissal. However, this petition was also dismissed, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In this appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenges the dismissal orders issued by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by both the High Court and the Administrative Judge of the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant contends that the dismissal was unjustified and that the charges against him were not proven. The appellant seeks relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that the dismissal was erroneous and should be overturned.
Laws Involved:
- Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
- Indian Evidence Act
Issue framed by the Court:
Whether the appellant was prejudiced due to lack of access to certain documents?
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
The court’s analysis revolves around several legal points raised by both the appellant’s counsel and the counsel representing the High Court. The appellant’s counsel argued that the charges against the appellant were vague, the punishment was disproportionate to the guilt, and the appellant was prejudiced due to lack of access to certain documents. Moreover, they contended that the findings of guilt were perverse. To support these arguments, reliance was placed on precedents such as ‘Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan’ and ‘Santosh Bakshi vs. State of Punjab’.
In contrast, the counsel for the High Court contended that the charges were specific and not vague, highlighting the appellant’s history of making false allegations against senior officers.
Upon careful consideration of the arguments and perusal of the case papers, the court scrutinized the charges against the appellant. The first charge involved allegations of misconduct and insubordination, including the use of inappropriate language and false accusations against officials. The court found that the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding the appellant’s statement in his application was based on a misinterpretation, leading to a perverse finding. Additionally, the court noted that the appellant did not directly make allegations of discrimination on a caste basis, as it was the Central Nazir who made such statements. The Inquiry Officer’s findings on this charge were thus deemed flawed.
Regarding the second charge, which pertained to sending representations directly to higher authorities without following the proper channel, the court observed that while this action may constitute a minor offense, termination from service was deemed excessive, especially considering examples of similar actions by other employees that did not result in termination.
The court referred to legal precedents such as Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu to emphasize principles regarding the role of appellate courts in disciplinary proceedings. It emphasized that while findings of an Inquiry Officer are generally not interfered with, they can be challenged if based on perverse findings.
In conclusion, considering the flaws in the Inquiry Officer’s findings and the disproportionate punishment imposed, the court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the termination order, reinstating the appellant with all consequential benefits.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
