Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from the dismissal of a Co-operative Supervisor, appointed in 1961, from service as Seed Store Incharge-cum-Secretary, Sahkari Sangh, Raniwan. Following his transfer in August 1976 and alleged failure to hand over charge, inspection in October 1976 revealed irregularities and misappropriation. An FIR for criminal breach of trust was lodged in November 1976, and on 13 December 1976 he was suspended, an inquiry officer appointed, and a memo of charges issued. The disciplinary authority claimed the employee avoided service and did not cooperate in the inquiry. On 20 April 1978, the Deputy Registrar dismissed him. He filed an appeal, but while it was pending he filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court and requested withdrawal of appeal; the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on merits. On 15 January 1992, the High Court allowed W.P.No.2990 of 1979 on the sole ground that copy of inquiry officer's report was not furnished, relying on Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan. The Supreme Court set aside that order and remitted for fresh disposal considering other grounds. On 7 December 1993, the High Court again allowed the writ petition, this time on the ground that the inquiry officer ought to have recorded statements of witnesses and send report to disciplinary authority even if the employee failed to cooperate. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could allow the writ petition without resolving the factual dispute about non-cooperation and without interpreting Regulation 68 of the Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. Counsel for appellant argued that the employee totally non-cooperated, avoiding service and not filing reply, so no oral inquiry was obligatory under Regulation 68. Counsel for respondent argued that non-cooperation was not true because authorities refused inspection of documents and highlighted the 16-year pendency. The Supreme Court found charges serious and refused to close the matter solely due to delay, especially where the appellant alone was not responsible. It noted that the High Court did not deal with the appellant's allegation of repeated opportunities and assumed oral inquiry was obligatory without referring to Regulation 68. The Court held that if the employer's allegations were true, the disciplinary authority could not be faulted for not holding a regular oral inquiry, and the writ petition could not be allowed unless the High Court held the employer's version untrue and the employee's version true. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in light of observations, directing expeditious hearing and permitting perusal of disciplinary records. No costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Oral Inquiry Not Mandatory When Delinquent Non-Cooperates - Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976, Regulation 68 - The respondent was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings; the High Court held that the inquiry officer ought to have recorded witness statements even if the respondent failed to cooperate. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court assumed oral inquiry obligatory without considering Regulation 68 and the employer's claim of non-cooperation. Held that if the employer's allegations of non-cooperation are true, the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted for not holding a regular oral inquiry; matter remitted for factual determination (Paras 5-7). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - High Court Must Resolve Factual Disputes and Interpret Regulations - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court allowed the writ petition solely on the ground that oral inquiry was obligatory, without deciding whether the employee failed to cooperate or was denied inspection of documents. The Supreme Court held that unless the employer's version was found untrue and the employee's version true, the writ petition could not be allowed. Held that the High Court must examine records and Regulation 68, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal (Paras 7-8). C) Service Law - Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay Alone Not Ground to Quash Serious Charges - Not mentioned - The respondent contended that proceedings had continued for 16 years and should be closed. The Supreme Court noted the charges were serious and the disciplinary authority alone could not be held responsible for delay, so declined to quash proceedings merely on delay. Held that delay alone is not sufficient when charges are serious and delay not solely attributable to one party (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition solely on the ground that the Inquiry Officer ought to have recorded witness statements even if the first respondent failed to cooperate, without resolving the factual dispute about non-cooperation and without interpreting Regulation 68 of the Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of the Allahabad High Court dated 7 December 1993 set aside; matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal of the writ petition in light of observations made; High Court directed to deal with the matter expeditiously and may look into records relating to disciplinary proceedings; no costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice requires furnishing inquiry report but an oral inquiry is not mandatory when delinquent employee non-cooperates
- Regulation 68 of Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations
- 1976 governs inquiry procedure
- High Court must resolve factual disputes and interpret regulations before allowing writ petition
- delay alone not sufficient to quash serious disciplinary proceedings
