Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Satyendra Singh, was serving as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad, when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him based on a charge sheet dated 5 March 2012. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 29 November 2012, and the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice. After considering the appellant's reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of censure and stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect on 5 November 2014. The appellant challenged this order before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which allowed his claim petition on 5 June 2015, quashing the penalty order and granting consequential benefits. The Tribunal found that the Inquiry Officer had proved charges merely on the basis of a verification report without involving the appellant in the inquiry, and that the findings were irrational and cryptic. The State then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which allowed the writ petition on 30 July 2018, setting aside the Tribunal's order and reinstating the penalty. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court examined the procedure under Rule 7(vii) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which mandates that when a government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer must call witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in the presence of the charged servant, who must be given an opportunity to cross-examine. The Court noted that the penalty imposed was a major penalty, and thus the procedure for major penalties applied. The Court observed that no witness was examined during the inquiry proceedings, and the Inquiry Officer relied solely on documents without proving their contents through oral evidence. The Court held that this was a clear violation of the mandatory procedure under Rule 7(vii). Relying on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Court reiterated that mere production of documents is not sufficient; the contents must be proved by examining witnesses. The Court concluded that the inquiry report was non est in law and the penalty order could not be sustained. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Tribunal's order quashing the penalty and granting consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Major Penalty - Rule 7(vii) of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Mandatory Recording of Oral Evidence - Where a government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer must call witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in the presence of the charged servant, who must be given an opportunity to cross-examine. In the instant case, no witness was examined despite the appellant denying the charges, and the inquiry report was based solely on documents. Held that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure, and the penalty order was liable to be set aside (Paras 11-14). B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Proof of Charges - Reliance on Documents - Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 - Mere production of documents is not enough; contents of documentary evidence must be proved by examining witnesses. The inquiry officer cannot treat investigation reports or FIR as substantive evidence without examining the authors. Held that the inquiry report based on unproved documents is irrational and cannot sustain a penalty (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the consequent penalty imposed on the appellant are vitiated for non-compliance with Rule 7(vii) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which mandates recording of oral evidence when the charged government servant denies the charges.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 30 July 2018, and restored the order of the State Public Services Tribunal dated 5 June 2015, which had quashed the penalty order and directed consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Recording of oral evidence in disciplinary proceedings is mandatory when the charged employee denies the charges and a major penalty is proposed
- mere production of documents without examining witnesses is insufficient
- inquiry report based solely on documents without oral evidence is non est in law
