1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -239
931. Inquiry is to be treated as vitiated in the event of failure to follow proper procedure
In the case of C.L. Subramanium V. Collector of Customs (AIR 1972 SC 2178], the Supreme Court observed that the procedural guarantee in the departmental proceedings is undoubtedly a valuable one and its breach shall vitiate the whole proceedings, resulting in annulment of any order based thereon. The pronouncements of the Apex Court, made from time to time, are as follows:
i. the inquiry must be held by an authority competent in that behalf;
ii. the proceedings are to be held in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
iii. action is not based or actuated by extraneous, or collateral considerations or by bias and mala fides,
iv. there must be some legally available evidence on record which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent employee is, in fact, guilty of the charge or charges framed against him. The evidence relied upon may not be in the sense of technical rules governing regular prosecution but in a fair common sense manner as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept;
v. there is no violation of the principles of natural justice; and (vi) the action, on the face of it, is not so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have taken it.
(State of Andhra v. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723; Pratap Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512; U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. V. N. Vajpayee, AIR 1960 SC 840]
931. Inquiry is to be treated as vitiated in the event of failure to follow proper procedure
In the case of C.L. Subramanium V. Collector of Customs (AIR 1972 SC 2178], the Supreme Court observed that the procedural guarantee in the departmental proceedings is undoubtedly a valuable one and its breach shall vitiate the whole proceedings, resulting in annulment of any order based thereon. The pronouncements of the Apex Court, made from time to time, are as follows:
i. the inquiry must be held by an authority competent in that behalf;
ii. the proceedings are to be held in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
iii. action is not based or actuated by extraneous, or collateral considerations or by bias and mala fides,
iv. there must be some legally available evidence on record which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent employee is, in fact, guilty of the charge or charges framed against him. The evidence relied upon may not be in the sense of technical rules governing regular prosecution but in a fair common sense manner as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept;
v. there is no violation of the principles of natural justice; and (vi) the action, on the face of it, is not so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have taken it.
(State of Andhra v. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723; Pratap Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512; U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. V. N. Vajpayee, AIR 1960 SC 840]
932. Examination of charged officer more times is not fair
Where the charged employee was examined at the commencement of the inquiry, and several times thereafter, the inquiry was not fair.
[Ram Shakul Yadav v. Chief Security Officer, AIR 1967 M.P. 91.]
933. Person once tried and cleared cannot be put on trial in the absence of vitiating circumstances.
This also attracts violation of Art. 20 (2) of the constitution. Article 20(2) says none can be prosecuted twice for the same charges. This applies to departmental cases also.
R.K.Singh X UP (1990) 13 ATC 590 Allahabad 1990 (2) ATJ 547
934. An officer associated with an earlier inquiry against the government servant or an officer who had expressed opinion about the case should not be appointed as I.O.
DG P&T letter No. 20/1/71.Disc.1 dt. 09.12.1971. DG P&T letter No. 201170174-Disc.ll dt. 20.05.1976, Government of India instruction under Rule 14
935. Apology made with explanation cannot be treated as admission of guilt
Apology made with explanation cannot be treated as admission of guilt. Order of punishment set aside because of IO not following the procedure laid down and DA and AA not passing a reasoned order – a must in quasi judicial proceedings.
[CAT New Delhi Bench OA NO. 1728 of 1990: Dhanpal V UOI DOJ 17 09 1993]
Post a Comment