Summary
The Supreme Court held that where a major penalty is proposed and the government servant denies the charge, Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 makes it mandatory to examine witnesses; an inquiry in which no witness at all was examined and charges were held proved on documents alone is vitiated. It set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Tribunal's order quashing the penalty.
Issues
- Whether a disciplinary inquiry for a major penalty under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is valid when no witness was examined to prove the charges.
- Whether the High Court was right to set aside the Tribunal's order quashing the penalty of censure and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.
Provisions considered
- Rule 3 (major penalties), Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999Withholding of increments with cumulative effect is listed first among major penalties, so the penalty imposed on the appellant was undisputedly a major penalty attracting the Rule 7 procedure. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Rule 7(vii), Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999Where the charged servant denies the charge, the Inquiry Officer must call the witnesses proposed in the charge sheet and record their oral evidence in his presence with a chance to cross-examine; the Court held this recording of oral evidence mandatory and found it wholly omitted. (¶¶ 11, 12, 17)
Held
- In an inquiry proposing a major penalty where the charge is denied, recording oral evidence of witnesses in support of the charges is mandatory under Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Following Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, mere production of documents does not prove their contents; witnesses must be examined, and even in an ex parte inquiry the recording of evidence to prove the charges is a sine qua non. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- It was admitted that not a single witness was examined and the Inquiry Officer relied only on documents relating to the alleged irregular transactions; the inquiry and the penalty founded on it were therefore vitiated and non est, and the High Court erred in interfering with the Tribunal's order. (¶¶ 12, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment dated 30.07.2018 set aside and the Tribunal's order dated 05.06.2015 restored with all consequential benefits; monetary benefits to be paid within two months, failing which with interest at 6% per annum; no order as to costs.