Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Singh, was posted as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari in District Basti in January 2003 and later as In-charge District Basic Education Officer in Gorakhpur. During April to June 2003, he issued appointment letters to 400 candidates in Gorakhpur and 121 candidates in Basti for the post of Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools. The State placed him under suspension on 24.07.2003 and initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The charge sheet alleged that the appointments violated Rules 16 and 19(3) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The appellant denied the charges, claiming he acted pursuant to High Court orders and directions from senior authorities. The enquiry officer found him guilty, and the disciplinary authority proposed removal from service. The appellant challenged the suspension and proposed punishment in the High Court, which granted interim stays. Ultimately, the Governor passed an order of removal on 21.04.2008, which was also stayed by the High Court. The State withdrew the proposed punishment in 2010, and the High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within six months. A second show cause notice was issued, and after a personal hearing, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal on 27.06.2017. The appellant challenged this order in the High Court, which partly allowed the writ petition on 10.05.2018. The High Court held that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice as the enquiry officer did not give notice of the date, time, and place of the oral enquiry. It quashed the removal order and remitted the matter for fresh enquiry from the charge sheet stage, directing that the appellant be treated under suspension and paid subsistence allowance. The High Court also deprecated the casual conduct of the disciplinary authorities and directed that the enquiry officer be appointed with the approval of the Chief Minister, who should be apprised of the outcome. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the parties and considered the issue of whether the appointments were made de hors the rules. The appellant argued that he made appointments pursuant to High Court orders and instructions from higher authorities, including a letter from the Secretary, Basic Education, and discussions with the Chief Minister and Minister. He also sought advice from the Chief Standing Counsel. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had correctly identified the violation of natural justice but found that the directions regarding the Chief Minister's approval and reporting were beyond the scope of judicial review. The Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside those specific directions while upholding the remand for fresh enquiry.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Violation of Natural Justice - Enquiry Officer failed to give notice of date, time and place of oral enquiry - High Court quashed removal order and remitted for fresh enquiry - Held that enquiry conducted in violation of natural justice is invalid (Paras 11-12). B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Bias - Allegation of bias against Enquiry Officer - No material on record to reveal bias - High Court rejected contention - Held that mere allegation without evidence is insufficient (Para 11). C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Parity in Punishment - Appellant sought parity with K.C. Bharati who received lesser punishment - High Court rejected - Held that each case depends on its own facts and gravity of charges (Para 11). D) Service Law - Suspension - Continued suspension during pendency of enquiry - High Court directed appellant to be treated under suspension and paid subsistence allowance - Held that suspension is permissible pending disciplinary proceedings (Para 11). E) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Directions to Disciplinary Authority - High Court directed appointment of enquiry officer with approval of Chief Minister and reporting outcome - Held that such directions are beyond the scope of judicial review and interfere with executive functions (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment letters issued to 521 candidates who were B.Ed. degree holders for the post of Assistant Teachers was conducted de hors the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Rules, and whether the High Court's directions for fresh enquiry with approval of Chief Minister were justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. The directions of the High Court regarding appointment of enquiry officer with the approval of the Chief Minister and reporting the outcome to the Chief Minister were set aside. The rest of the High Court's order, including the quashing of the removal order and remand for fresh enquiry from the charge sheet stage, was upheld. The appellant's suspension and subsistence allowance as directed by the High Court were maintained.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- disciplinary proceedings
- validity of enquiry
- bias
- parity in punishment
- suspension during enquiry
- appointment procedure under U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules
- 1981
