Fair Play in Discipline: Court Upholds Employee Rights in Procedural Dispute

 

In a noteworthy judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Patna delivered a decisive verdict in a case involving disciplinary proceedings against a government servant. The case, registered as Letters Patent Appeal No. 861 of 2019, challenged an earlier order by a single judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7348 of 2015. The High Court's ruling, delivered on March 1, 2024, centered on the appellant's contention that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed due to non-compliance with procedural rules and a lack of proper inquiry into disputed facts.

The appellant, Ashok Kumar Singh, a retired Executive Engineer from the Rural Works Department of the Government of Bihar, had faced disciplinary actions under Rule 19 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The disciplinary authority had imposed penalties of Censure and withholding two increments without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant's revision/review petition was rejected, leading to the filing of C.W.J.C. No. 7348 of 2015, which was eventually dismissed.

The core argument put forth by the appellant's counsel was that the single judge had erred in overlooking crucial contentions raised in the reply to the charge sheet. It was argued that there was a non-application of mind by the disciplinary and revisional authorities, particularly concerning the appellant's explanation for not furnishing certain documents. The appellant had specifically stated that the documents were under the custody of an employee who was on election duty, a fact that was allegedly not considered.

Conversely, the State's counsel defended the single judge's order, asserting that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules 2005, which pertains to the imposition of minor penalties. The State argued that since only minor penalties were involved, the disciplinary authority was only required to issue a show-cause notice, along with the charges, and seek an explanation from the government servant.

The High Court, after hearing both sides, delved into the specifics of Rule 19 of the Rules 2005. The court highlighted that Rule 19(1)(b) mandates an inquiry under sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 17, especially when the disciplinary authority believes an inquiry is necessary. In this case, the appellant's explanation regarding the unavailability of the documents due to the custodian being on election duty constituted a disputed issue that warranted an inquiry.

The High Court emphasized the necessity of verifying the appellant's claims, particularly the assertion that he was not the custodian of the records and that the actual custodian's absence on election duty was beyond his control. The court ruled that the disciplinary authority erred in imposing a minor penalty without conducting the mandatory inquiry under Rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules 2005. It also found fault with the revisional authority and the single judge for failing to recognize this procedural lapse.

Drawing reference to the Supreme Court's decision in O.K. Bhardwaj Versus Union of India and others [(2001) 9 SCC 180], the High Court reiterated the principle that a departmental inquiry is mandatory when there are disputed facts in a case involving the imposition of penalties.

In light of these considerations, the Patna High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the disciplinary authority, the revisional authority, and the single judge. The court directed the Respondent-State to restore the withheld increments, revise the pay and pension of the appellant, and disburse the differential amount within three months.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings and the necessity of conducting thorough inquiries when factual disputes arise. It reaffirms the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of government servants and ensuring that disciplinary actions are in strict compliance with the established rules and legal principles.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM4NjEjMjAxOSMxI04=-QV4atzNfhAg=