Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a cooperative federation employee and the recovery ordered against him because the department examined no witness in the disciplinary enquiry although he had denied the charges; an evasive reply to a charge-sheet is not an admission. The Federation was given liberty to hold a fresh enquiry.
Issues
- Whether the employee's reply to the charge-sheet amounted to an admission so that no witness had to be examined to prove the charges.
- Whether a disciplinary enquiry under rules in pari materia with Regulation 85 of the 1975 Regulations is valid when the charges are denied and no witness is examined in support of them.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 85, U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975Regulation 85, with which Rule 84 of the Federation's 1980 Service Rules is in pari materia, requires disciplinary proceedings to observe natural justice, including a charge-sheet with the supporting evidence and an opportunity to produce or cross-examine witnesses and be heard in person. The Court held these requirements were not met when no witness was examined on denied charges. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Rule 84, Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation LimitedThe rule governing the appellant's disciplinary proceedings, held to be in pari materia with Regulation 85 of the 1975 Regulations, so the precedents under Regulation 85 applied. (¶¶ 15, 17)
- Section 58, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The respondents argued that facts admitted need not be proved and that the appellant's evasive reply admitted the charge. The Court rejected this because there was no categorical admission and a departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Held
- A departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint, so an evasive reply to it does not amount to an admission. Unless the charge is admitted, the burden of proving it lies on the employer, and here the appellant had denied the charges, as the High Court itself had noted. (¶ 14)
- Unless the charged employee clearly accepts guilt, an enquiry must be held in which the employer first leads evidence and offers its witnesses for cross-examination, after which the employee is asked whether he wishes to lead evidence or explain. Even where the case rests only on documents, unless the employee admits them, a witness must be examined to prove them and tendered for cross-examination. (¶ 17)
- Since the department produced no witness although the charges were denied, the enquiry was vitiated, and the dismissal and consequential recovery could not stand. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment, the dismissal and the recovery set aside. The Federation may hold a de novo enquiry within six months, reinstating the appellant under suspension on suspension allowance meanwhile; otherwise he is to be reinstated with continuity of service and arrears of salary after adjusting any suspension allowance paid. No costs.