Summary
The Supreme Court held that, where the High Court had quashed a penalty of reduction in rank imposed on a retired police officer for alleged dereliction during the 1984 Delhi riots because the disciplinary authority's disagreement note pre-judged his guilt, it ought not to have granted liberty to issue a fresh disagreement note: after a lapse of about 40 years, the officer's retirement and advanced age, and a detailed inquiry report of exoneration that the cryptic dissent note did not answer, the Court put a quietus to the proceedings and granted full consequential benefits.
Issues
- Whether, having set aside the punishment order because the disciplinary authority's disagreement note was in substance a finding of guilt that rendered the show-cause notice an empty formality, the High Court ought to have granted the disciplinary authority liberty to issue a fresh disagreement note and proceed afresh.
- Whether, on the inquiry report and the disagreement note, there was any justifiable basis for the disciplinary authority to differ from the Inquiry Officer's exoneration, so that the proceedings could be brought to a close rather than remanded.
- What relief the appellant was entitled to.
Provisions considered
- Rules 14 and 15 (inquiry and action on the inquiry report), Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965The inquiry was held under Rule 14. CAT had earlier held that on disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer the disciplinary authority could order only a further inquiry, not a de novo one, and could record disagreement only after notice and hearing. The Court reiterated that a disciplinary authority may disagree with the Inquiry Officer but must give brief reasons for the disagreement and afford the employee an opportunity to respond before forming its own opinion on punishment; a note that merely pronounces the officer guilty does not meet this requirement. (¶¶ 4, 15, 18, 20)
Held
- A disciplinary authority has power to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, but it must record brief reasons for the disagreement and give the employee an opportunity to respond to the disagreement note before deciding on punishment; a note that is an expression of opinion that the officer is guilty rather than a note of dissent pre-judges the matter and vitiates the show-cause. (¶¶ 9, 15, 18)
- Ordinarily, where an inquiry is found deficient, the High Court should remand the matter to the stage where the error crept in; but where there is a long time-lag or a remand would be unfair, harsh or unnecessary, the court may in its discretion mould the relief instead of remanding. (¶¶ 17, 19)
- In deciding whether to put a quietus to the proceedings, the Court examined the inquiry report and the disagreement note and found the note cryptic: it ignored vital aspects considered by the Inquiry Officer, namely the limited force available, the focus on protecting critical installations and potential targets, the firing resorted to in order to disperse rather than injure, the testimony of the officer's immediate superior commending his work, and the 106 arrests effected. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Adverse inference cannot be drawn on a matter not covered by the charge read with the statement of imputations; absence of evidence that tear gas was available defeats a charge of not using it; the absence of gunshot injuries is no ground to infer inaction, since firing in the air to disperse a mob is a bona fide course; without evidence that additional force sat idle, inadequate deployment cannot be inferred; and non-making of preventive arrests proves nothing where riots broke out suddenly and no prior intelligence was shown. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Promotion does not automatically wipe out misconduct that comes to light later, but where the alleged misconduct is an omission, greater caution is required before putting an officer in the dock, and the disciplinary authority must empathise with the situation the officer faced at the time; punishing police personnel who did their best with available resources on the strength of hindsight would do grave injustice. (¶ 32)
- With the incident over 40 years old and the appellant long retired and about 80 years of age, requiring him to undergo a fresh disagreement-note exercise would be too harsh; the liberty granted by the High Court was set aside and the proceedings brought to an end. (¶¶ 17, 19, 33, 34)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside to the extent it granted the disciplinary authority liberty to issue a fresh disagreement note, and affirmed to the extent it quashed the punishment; writ petition allowed; appellant entitled to all consequential benefits including revision of pension, if any; pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs.