Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the District Court, Osmanabad, challenged the disciplinary order dated 23.04.2001 whereby he was held guilty in a departmental inquiry and his one increment was permanently stopped. The order was confirmed in appeal before the High Court. The charge was that after the restoration of Regular Civil Appeal No. 133 of 1983 on 01.07.1998, the petitioner failed to call the record and proceedings as per the order dated 09.07.1998, resulting in the destruction of the 'C' file of Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 1977 on 07.10.1998. The Inquiry Officer exonerated both the petitioner and his co-delinquent, but the Disciplinary Authority took a contrary view and held them guilty. The petitioner argued that the order dated 09.07.1998 did not contain any direction to call record and proceedings; the words 'Call R&P' were interpolated in blue ink in different handwriting and font, while the original order was in black ink. He also contended that under para 544(2) of the Civil Manual, the Record Office should have destroyed the 'C' file only after 12 years from the disposal of the appeal, and the destruction was not caused by his failure to call the record. The court considered the interpolation of the order and the lack of causal link between the petitioner's omission and the destruction. The court held that the disciplinary authority's finding of guilt was not sustainable and quashed the impugned order. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Interpolation of Order - The order dated 09.07.1998 showed restoration of appeal and issuance of notices in black ink, but the words 'Call R&P' were interpolated in blue ink in different font and handwriting, raising serious doubt about the existence of a valid order to call record and proceedings - Held that the disciplinary authority ought to have considered this interpolation before holding the petitioner guilty (Paras 3-4). B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Causal Link - Even if the petitioner failed to call the record, the destruction of the 'C' file on 07.10.1998 was primarily the responsibility of the Record Office under para 544(2) of the Civil Manual, which permits destruction only after 12 years from disposal of appeal - The petitioner's omission was not the direct cause of destruction - Held that the disciplinary authority's finding of guilt was not sustainable (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary authority's finding of guilt against the petitioner for failure to call record and proceedings leading to destruction of 'C' file is sustainable when the order to call R&P was allegedly interpolated and the destruction was not directly caused by the petitioner's omission.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order are quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Interpolation of order
- Causal link
- Burden of proof
- Natural justice
