Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
wp.2296.02
WRIT PETITION NO.2296 of 2002 1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhavan otla Road! Ne" #elhi $. %he Secretary! Government o& India! 'inistry o& (a)our! Shram Sha*ti Bhavan! Ne" #elhi. +. %he Chairman!Standin, Committee ESI Corporation! ESIC Buildin, otla Road! Ne" #elhi. }
ig h
ba y
.. %he #eputy /dministrative 0&&icer 12i,ilance3 ESI Corporation! Panchdeep Bhavan! otla Road! Ne" #elhi. 4. %he 5inancial Commissioner ESI Corporation! Panchdeep Bhavan! otla Road! Ne" #elhi. vs 1. Shri /.2.%un,are R60 %amhane 7ouse! Near Chavadi! Neral! %al ar8at #istrict Rai,ad $. Shri 7.5.Rane 9t.Re,ional #irector!
-. %he #irector General!ESI Corporation! ESIC Buildin,! otla Road! Ne" #elhi
om
C ou
} } } } } } } .. Petitioners } }
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2014 09:45:19 :::
rt
RNG
wp.2296.02
+. Shri 9.#.Barahate Insurance Inspector 1(3 Su) Re,ional 0&&ice!ESIC Panchdeep Bhavan!Ganesh Peth! Na,pur.
H om B ba y
1. present proceedin,s.
JUDGMENT (Pe G.S.K!"#$ %&, J ' >hat are the conse?uences o& admission o& char,es )y a delin?uent
employee )e&ore the In?uiry 0&&icer in a disciplinary in?uiry and "hether a&ter recordin, o& such admissions! the in?uiry can still proceed or can )e closed to su)mit a in?uiry report is the moot issue "hich arises in the
ig h
CORAM : V. M.KANADE & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ 28.1.2014 14.3.2014
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2014 09:45:19 :::
/ppearances=
C ou
}
rt
RNG
wp.2296.02
2.
By the present petition under /rticle $$4 o& the Constitution o& India!
order dated <.+.$@@$ passed )y the Central /dministrative %ri)unal 'um)ai Bench in 0ri,inal /pplication No.<@< o& 1AA-. By the impu,ned 9ud,ment the Central /dministrative %ri)unal has allo"ed the 0ri,inal /pplication &iled )y the Respondent "ho "as the employee o& the
o& the 1st respondent's services is ?uashed and set aside. It is held that the 1st respondent "ould )e entitled to .@B o& the "a,es &rom the date o& dismissal &rom service up to the date o& his reinstatement. It "as &urther directed that the petitioner "ould )e at li)erty to proceed a,ainst the 1 st
om
ba y
+.
%he 1st respondent "as in the service o& the 1 st petitioner since the
year 1A:<. In the year 1AA@ the 1st respondent "as "or*in, as 'ana,er Grade C1 at the local o&&ice o& the 1 st petitioner Corporation at /*ola. %herea&ter the 1st respondent "as posted in %amil Nadu Circle "hen the
ig h
C ou
rt
RNG
wp.2296.02
char,e sheet dated $+...1AA@ "as issued to the 1 st respondent )y the petitioner. %he statement o& articles o& char,es contained 11 char,es in
respect o& various acts o& the 1st respondent durin, the period 1...1A<- to 1.A.1A<< "hen the 1st respondent "as posted at /*ola in Na,pur Su)C re,ion. It "as alle,ed that the various acts o& commission and omissions amounted to violation o& rules under the CCS 1Conduct3 Rules! 1A4- read
Services3 Re,ulations 1A.A. %he statement o& imputations o& misconduct "as also &urnished to the 1st respondent enumeratin, the )asis and the details o& various char,es. 5urther various documents in support o& the char,es "ere also &urnished to the 1st respondent.
om
ba y
-.
%he 1st respondent &iled his reply to the char,e sheet and denied all
the char,es. Shri S.R.Srinivasan the then 9oint Re,ional #irector 1#E3 South Done 'adras "as appointed as an In?uiry 0&&icer to conduct the in?uiry under the said char,e sheet. Shri. Srinivasan held a preliminary in?uiry at Na,pur "here the 1st respondent states that the char,es as levelled a,ainst him "ere denied )y him. /&ter the &irst hearin, held on ..1$.1AA@ Shri S.R.Srinivasan retired on superannuation. %here&ore! )y an
ig h
"ith the Employees State Insurance Corporation 1Sta&& and Conditions o&
C ou
rt
RNG
wp.2296.02
order dated 1@...1AA1 issued )y the 1st petitioner Shri 7.P. Rane the 9oint Re,ional #irector Su)CRe,ional o&&ice! Na,pur "as appointed as the In?uiry 0&&icer. Shri.S. .Noor /hmed "as appointed as the presentin, o&&icer &or the department to replace Shri S.R.Natra8anan "ho "as earlier appointed as the presentin, o&&icer. /t the hearin, o& the in?uiry! &iEed on $+.A.1AA1 the 1st respondent eEpressed his ina)ility to appear as he "as on
ad8ourned to 4.1.1AA$ on "hich day the 1st respondent appeared and stated that he has already denied all the char,es at the hearin, held on ..1$.1AA@. /t the said hearin,! the 1st respondent also con&irmed receipt o& the copies o& the documents as relied upon )y the department in support o& the char,es
om
ba y
as also inspection o& the same "as ,iven a&ter "hich the 1 st respondent stated that he did not "ant call &or any additional documents and that he did not "ish to produce any "itness in support o& his de&ence. / re,ular in?uiry "as &iEed on $1.:.1AA$ and the same "as ad8ourned to +.1$.1AA$.
..
and re?uested &or en,a,in, the services o& Shri 9.#.Barahate 1(e,al Inspector3 o& the 1st petitioner Corporation as his de&ence /ssistant. %his
ig h
C ou
rt
RNG
wp.2296.02
re?uest o& the 1st respondent "as accepted )y the In?uiry 0&&icer and it "as indicated that the in?uiry can commence as the initial &ormalities o& inspection o& documents and &urnishin, copies thereo& "as over. /t the said hearin, the de&ence assistant Shri 9.#.Barahate made a su)mission that thou,h the 1st respondent had pleaded not ,uilty to all the 11 char,es in the char,e sheet! the 1st respondent "anted to chan,e his plea and no" "ants
satis&ied that the su)stance in each o& the char,es "as correct. %he #e&ence /ssistant there&ore! sou,ht permission &or chan,in, the plea and &or pleadin, the ,uilty to all the 11 char,es.
om
ba y
4.
+.$.1AA$ all the 11 char,es "hich "ere independently enumerated under "hich the respondent made the &ollo"in, hand"ritten endorsement )elo" every char,e = F I accept the char,e F S6d 1/.2.%un,are3 +.$.1AA$
ig h
C ou
rt
RNG
wp.2296.02
admission o& the char,es! there "ould not )e a necessity to ,o ahead "ith the in?uiry proceedin,s since all the char,es stood proved in totality. %he
In?uiry 0&&icer as*ed the 1st respondent "hether he had anythin, &urther to to say )y "ay o& su)mission in "ritin,. /ccordin,ly! a letter dated
+.$.1AA$ "as su)mitted )y the 1 st respondent as also si,ned )y the de&ence assistant addressed to the 9oint Re,ional #irector in char,e Su)CRe,ional
F %o!
%he 9oint Re,ional #irector 1I603 Su) Re,ional 0&&ice! ESI Corporation! N/GPGR.
ba y
Sir!
om
I have to su)mit that I have care&ully ,one throu,h the char,es No.1 to 11 levelled a,ainst me &or holdin, departmental En?uiry a,ainst me &or misconduct and mis)ehaviour. In this connection! I have to su)mit that the omissions and lapses enumerated in the char,e sheet "ere not deli)erate on my part or "ith an ulterior motive to ,ain somethin, &or me. %hey have occurred innocently durin, the course o& dischar,in, my duties as a 'ana,er &or "hich I sincerely tender my apolo,y. I voluntarily and unconditionally plead ,uilty &or all the char,es levelled a,ainst me and hum)ly re?uest you to *indly pardon me &or the same. I have &urther to su)mit that these omission and mista*es "ere occurred only )ecause o& the mental distur)ance on account o& &amily pro)lems.
ig h
C ou
rt
RNG
wp.2296.02
Hours &aith&ully! S6d 1 /.2.%un,are 3 '/N/GER GR/#ECI S6d 1 9.#.Barahate 3 #t.+.$.1AA$ Place=Na,pur
#E5ENCE /SSIS%/N% F
%he de&ence /ssistant o& the 1st respondent made oral su)missions
7o"ever! all the lapses "ere on account o& the distur)ed mental condition
om
ba y
o& the 1st respondent and he had committed the o&&ences "ithout understandin, the serious implications involved. It "as &urther su)mitted that )ecause o& the distur)ed state o& mind on account o& certain domestic pro)lems! the 1st respondent "as not havin, )alance e?uili)rium o& mind in the result he committed the lapses &or "hich he &elt repented and "as see*in, pardon havin, realiIed the mista*es he had committed. It "as &urther su)mitted )y the de&ence /ssistant that i& the Corporation had )een su)8ected to any monetary loss on account o& the lapses o& the 1st respondent he "as ready to compensate the Corporation )y ma*in, ,ood
that it is a &act that lapses occurred on the part o& the 1st respondent.
ig h
C ou
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2014 09:45:20 :::
rt
I have to su)mit that my hum)le re?uest o& ta*in, lenient vie" in a"ardin, the punishment in my case may *indly )e conveyed to the #isciplinary /uthority &or "hich act o& *indness! I shall remain hi,hly o)li,ed.
RNG
wp.2296.02
the relevant losses. It "as stated that this re?uest may )e communicated to the disciplinary authority as a special case "ith a re?uest that this su)mission may )e *ept in vie" "hile a"ardin, the punishment i& any. It "as &urther su)mitted that the lapses that "ere committed )y the 1 st respondent "ere not intentional and "as made in a distur)ed state o& mind and hence he "as re?uestin, &or a minimum penalty that is prescri)ed
very &aith&ul and very loyal and sincere in the per&ormance o& his duties and "ill not ,ive any room &or any such complaint "as also recorded in the in?uiry proceedin,s. %he In?uiry 0&&icer recorded that accordin,ly the 1st respondent "as in&ormed that on account o& the &act that the 1 st
ba y
respondent had unconditionally and voluntarily pleaded ,uilty to all the char,es the in?uiry is not re?uired to )e proceeded and that Shri um)har
om
the Re,ional #irector and 'r.P.N.#harmadhi*ari the /udit Inspector "ho "ere present as "itnesses o& the mana,ement "ere there&ore! dischar,ed. %he a&oresaid recordin, o& the in?uiry proceedin,s dated +.$.1AA$ "as duly si,ned )y the 1st respondent and the de&ence /ssistant and all others "ho "ere present. :. %he 1st respondent therea&ter addressed a letter dated $A...1AA$ to
ig h
under the provisions o& la" and &urther su)mitted that he "ould )e vi,ilant!
C ou
rt
RNG
10
wp.2296.02
the #irector General o& the 1st petitioner statin, that as re,ards the in?uiry report he had no comments to o&&er and re?uested to ta*e a lenient vie". By a detailed order dated :.:.1AA$ passed )y the disciplinary authority! it "as recorded that the char,es "hich "ere admitted "ere eEtremely serious. It "as recorded that there "ere no eEtenuatin, circumstances in this case and that the 1st respondent "as not a &it person to )e retained in the service o&
1st respondent.
<.
om
ba y
Standin, Committee o& the ESIC in "hich the 1 st respondent inter alia contended that the in?uiry report had proceeded on a presumption that the 1st respondent had admitted all the char,es levelled a,ainst him and that &rom the inception he had denied all the char,es and that the same "ere "ron,ly &ramed a,ainst him. %he 1 st respondent contended that the In?uiry 0&&icer had told him that i& he did not plead ,uilty the in?uiry "ill prolon, &or years and that the char,es "ere not serious and there&ore the disciplinary authority had not suspend the 1 st respondent and there&ore! i&
ig h
the 1st Corporation and hence the penalty o& dismissal "as imposed on the
C ou
rt
RNG
11
wp.2296.02
he pleaded ,uilty it "ould save the 1st respondent &rom &urther mental harassment and torture and only a minor punishment "ould )e imposed a,ainst him. It "as prayed that the order o& dismissal )e set aside and he )e reinstated in service.
A.
Revision Petition under Re,ulation $$ o& the Employees State Insurance Corporation 1Sta&& and Conditions o& Service3 Re,ulation! 1A.A )e&ore the Secretary! Government o& India! 'inistry o& (a)our.
ig h
appeal &iled )y the 1st respondent. %he 1st respondent therea&ter pre&erred a
1:.1$.1AA+ it "as held that the Revision Petition "as not maintaina)le.
om
ba y
1@.
Central /dministrative %ri)unal! 'um)ai Bench! )y &ilin, 0ri,inal /pplication No.<@< o& 1AA- under Section 1A o& the /dministrative %ri)unals /ct prayin, &or a declaration that the 1 st respondent had not pleaded ,uilty to the char,es levelled a,ainst him and that the char,e sheet dated $+...1AA@! the In?uiry 0&&icer's report dated +.-.1AA$ "ere not sustaina)le in la" and that the In?uiry 0&&icer had acted "ith )ias and
C ou
By an order dated
rt
RNG
12
wp.2296.02
pre8udice in active connivance "ith the de&ence /ssistant and hence the order o& dismissal and order o& the appellate authority and the Revisional
authority "ere )adCinCla". %he Central /dministrative %ri)unal )y its 9ud,ment dated $@.1@.$@@@ set aside the order o& dismissal and su)se?uent orders passed )y the appellate authority and the Revisional authority and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to eEamine "hether there
o)tained )y conspiracy )et"een the de&ence /ssistant and the In?uiry 0&&icer "ith an assurance that a lenient vie" in a"ardin, penalty shall )e ,ranted. /,ainst this 8ud,ment and order o& the Central /dministrative %ri)unal!'um)ai Bench! 'um)ai cross >rit petitions "ere &iled. %he
om
ba y
petitioners "as a,,rieved to the eEtent that the order o& dismissal passed )y the disciplinary authority as con&irmed )y the appellate authority "as set aside. %he 1st respondent "as a,,rieved to the eEtent that the Central /dministrative %ri)unal directed the disciplinary authority to eEamine "hether there "as clear admission o& the ,uilt o& the 1st respondent and to test the alle,ation o& conspiracy )et"een the de&ence /ssistant and the In?uiry o&&icer.
ig h
"as clear admission o& ,uilt )y the 1st respondent and "hether it "as not
C ou
rt
RNG
13
wp.2296.02
11.
/ #ivision Bench o& this Court )y its 8ud,ment and order dated
$+.-.$@@1 set aside the 8ud,ment and order dated $@.1@.$@@@ passed )y the
Central /dministrative %ri)unal and restored 0ri,inal /pplication No.<@< o& 1AA- to the &ile o& the Central /dministrative %ri)unal directin, that the same )e disposed in accordance "ith la" a&ter hearin, the parties. In pursuance thereto! the Central /dministrative %ri)unal )y the impu,ned
ig h
8ud,ment dated <.+.$@@$ ad8udicated the 0ri,inal /pplication as &iled )y &iled )y the 1st
respondent "as allo"ed. %he Central /dministrative %ri)unal set aside the order dated :.:.1AA$ dismissin, the 1st respondent &rom service and held that the 1st respondent "as entitled &or .@B "a,es &rom the date o&
om
ba y
1$.
)y an interim order implementation o& the impu,ned 8ud,ment and order o& the Central /dministrative %ri)unal "as stayed. #urin, the pendency o&
the present "rit petition! the 1st respondent had attained the a,e o& superannuation on +1.1$.$@11.
C ou
rt
RNG
14
wp.2296.02
1+.
petitioner and 'r.Ramesh Rammurthy learned counsel appearin, &or the 1 st respondent. >ith the assistance o& the learned counsel &or the parties! "e have ,one throu,h record o& the present proceedin,s.
1-.
(earned counsel &or the petitioner has su)mitted that the Central
ig h
/dministrative %ri)unal has erred in allo"in, the 0ri,inal application &iled the 1 st
respondent had accepted6a,reed to all the char,es )y a statement made in "ritin, )e&ore the In?uiry 0&&icer. 7e &urther su)mits that the 1 st respondent &urther )y a letter dated +.$.1AA$ addressed to the Re,ional
ba y
#irector
om
su)mits that not only this )ut the 1st respondent therea&ter )y a letter dated $A...1AA$ addressed to the #irector General o& the 1 st respondent a,ain re?uested to ta*e a lenient vie" "hich &urther compounded the voluntary admission o& ,uilt in respect o& all the char,es as levelled a,ainst him. (earned counsel &or the petitioner su)mits that the reliance on )ehal& o& the 1st respondent on the 8ud,ment o& the Supreme Court in the case o&
C ou
rt
RNG
15
1
wp.2296.02
as o)served )y the
Central /dministrative %ri)unal "as misplaced as the same had no application in the &acts o& the present case. 7e &urther su)mits that on merits the Central /dministrative %ri)unal could not have come to a
conclusion that the char,es a,ainst the 1st respondent are not proved. 7e su)mits that there is an admission made )y the 1st respondent )e&ore the
8ud,ments in support o& his su)mission that once the char,es are admitted
om
ba y
)y a delin?uent employee! a di&&erent stand cannot )e ta*en and that as a lo,ical conse?uence o& the admission o& char,es! necessarily no &urther in?uiry is re?uired to )e underta*en )y the disciplinary authority =C
F/dditional #istrict 'a,istrate 1City3 vs Pra)ha*ar Chaturdevi ; anrJ $! #elhi %ransport Corporation vs Shyam (al+ ! Chairman ; 'ana,in, #irector vs Gopara8u Sri . Pra)ha*ar 7ari Ba)u ! 'ano8 7.'ishra vs Gnion o& India ! Channa)asapa Basappa 7appali vs %he State o& 'ysore4 ! olhapur Dilla Saha*ari #udh Gtpada* San,h vs.Shiva8i Shan*ar Phara*ate ; anr.:! Canara Ban* vs 7.%. oli ; anr.<
1 $ + . 4 : < /IR 1A41 Supreme Court 1@:@ 11AA43 $SCC 1$ 1$@@-3 < SSC << 1$@@<3 . SCC 4A 1$@1+3 4 SCC +1+ 1A:1 113SCC 1 $@@A 1Supp3 Bom.C.R.:14 1$@@@3 III ((9 $:: Bom
1..
(earned counsel &or the petitioner has relied upon the &ollo"in,
ig h
In?uiry 0&&icer and his su)se?uent conduct has not )een considered )y the
C ou
rt
RNG
16
wp.2296.02
14.
respondent "ould su)mit that the impu,ned 8ud,ment and order passed )y
the Central /dministrative %ri)unal does not call &or any inter&erence in the present proceedin,s in as much as the same has )een passed in consonance "ith the o)servations o& the Supreme court in case o& Ja !"#$ P%a#a! Sa&'(a )#.S*a*' of Ma!$+a P%a!'#$ 1supra3. Relyin, upon this 8ud,ment
the said admissions ou,ht not to have closed the in?uiry and ou,ht to have proceeded "ith the in?uiry proceedin,s so as to ascertain "hether the mana,ement proves the various char,es as levelled a,ainst the 1st respondent in the char,e sheet. 7e su)mits that in this case the 1 st
om
ba y
respondent "as in&luenced )y the de&ence /ssistant and the In?uiry 0&&icer to a,ree to the char,es in the in?uiry proceedin,s held on +.$.1AA$. 7e su)mits that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority has &ailed to consider the ,rievance o& the 1st respondent and circumstances under "hich admissions o& the char,es came to )e made )y the 1 st respondent. 7e "ould su)mit that there "as no pre8udice "hatsoever caused to the petitioners i& the petitioners on ,rantin, reinstatement proceed a,ainst the petitioner to hold a departmental in?uiry as per la" to esta)lish the char,es.
ig h
o& the Supreme Court! he su)mits that the In?uiry 0&&icer on the )asis o&
C ou
rt
RNG
17
wp.2296.02
1:.
7avin, considered the rival su)missions o& the parties "e may note
that the indisputed &acts are that a char,e sheet dated $+...1AA@ containin, 11 char,es "as issued to the 1st respondent. /n In?uiry 0&&icer "as duly appointed to conduct a departmental en?uiry. /ll the documents in support o& the char,es "ere duly &urnished to the 1st respondent. /n opportunity
0&&icer. %he 1st respondent also appointed Shri 9.#.Barahate as his de&ence /ssistant. In the in?uiry proceedin,s held on +.+.1AA$ the 1st respondent su)mitted an unconditional acceptance o& all the char,es and pleaded &or a lenient vie" to )e ta*en in the matter a,ainst him. 5urthermore! the 1 st
om
ba y
respondent also su)mitted a letter dated +.$.1AA$ statin, that he has voluntarily and unconditionally pleaded ,uilty to all the char,es levelled a,ainst him and reiterated that he )e pardoned &or the same. %he 1 st respondent &urther su)mitted a letter to the #irector General dated $A...1AA$ in "hich the 1st respondent than*ed the #irector General &or relievin, him o& the )otheration o& the departmental in?uiry and stated that he has no comments to o&&er in respect o& the in?uiry report and made a re?uest to ta*e a lenient vie" in vie" o& the reasons as stated )y him in the
ig h
"as ,iven to the 1st respondent to represent his case )e&ore the In?uiry
C ou
rt
RNG
18
wp.2296.02
said letter. %hese circumstances clearly ,o to sho" that admissions o& the char,es "ere voluntary and not due to any undue in&luence on the part o& the de&ence /ssistant and the In?uiry 0&&icer. 7o"ever! contrary to the said position in the 'emorandum o& /ppeal &iled a,ainst the order o& dismissal the 1st respondent &or the &irst time too* a stand that he had admitted to the char,es as he "as told to do so )y his de&ence /ssistant and the In?uiry
the en?uiry proceedin,s or )e&ore &ilin, o& the appeal made any ,rievance a)out the alle,ed collusive conduct o& the de&ence assistant and the in?uiry o&&icer to induce him to admit the char,es.
ig h
0&&icer. It is note"orthy that the 1st respondent at no point o& time either in
&orce or presence "as ever made. In &act! the 1st respondent's letters dated
ba y
+.$.1AA$ and $A...1AA$ completely nulli&y such a plea as ta*en )y the 1 st respondent )e&ore the /ppellate /uthority. >e do not thin* it "as
om
permissi)le in la" &or the 1st respondent to adopt such a contrary position to retract &rom the admissions as made )e&ore the In?uiry 0&&icer and the same "as a clear a&ter thou,ht. /dmissions made )e&ore the In?uiry 0&&icer "ould not loose their e&&icacy and relevance &or the purpose o& the "heels o& the in?uiry set into motion unless there are accepta)le reasons that the same are not voluntary or are under &orce or duress.
C ou
rt
RNG
19
wp.2296.02
the ,eneral position in la" can )e seen )y re&errin, to the provisions o& Section .< o& the Evidence /ct. Section .< deals "ith the &acts "hich are admitted and hence not re?uired to )e proved. It provides that no &act need to )e proved in any proceedin,s "hich the parties thereto or their a,ents
admit )y any "ritin, under their hands! or "hich )y any rule o& pleadin, in &orce at the time they are deemed to have admitted )y their pleadin,s. %he proviso to this section states that the Court may in its discretion! re?uire the &acts to )e admitted to )e proved other"ise than )y such admissions.
om
ba y
%he 1st respondent in "ritin, had admitted to the char,es and hence
as a le,al re?uirement such admission )ecomes relevant. %he char,es "hich are admitted )y the 1st respondent "ere not re?uired to )e proved and the in?uiry can )e said to )e ri,htly closed. Pertinently the 1 st respondent a,reed to close the en?uiry.
ig h
a,ree to admit at the hearin, or "hich )e&ore the hearin,! they a,ree to
C ou
rt
RNG
20
wp.2296.02
1< Court =
%he 9ud,ment o& the Supreme Court in the case o& A!!"*"o(a, D"#*%"-* Ma "#*%a*' .-"*+/ A %a )# P%a0$a1a% C$a*2%!')" 3 a(% . supra3 dealt "ith a case arisin, out o& misappropriation o& money )y an employee "ho had admitted the &act in "ritin,. /&ter a disciplinary in?uiry! the
>rit petition &iled )y the employee )e&ore the 7i,h Court o& 9udicature at /llaha)ad! the same "as allo"ed )y the learned Sin,le 9ud,e on the ,round that the authorities had not ,iven ade?uate opportunity to the employee to de&end as he "as not permitted to eEamine "itnesses nor he
om
ba y
"as supplied the documents! the dismissal order "as ?uashed and set aside and the employee "as directed to )e reinstated "ith &ull )ac* "a,es. In a challen,e to the said order o& the /llaha)ad 7i,h Court )e&ore the Supreme Court! the Supreme Court o)served as under =
F-. K.....................in our vie"! the 7i,h Court has erred in i,norin, the salient &eatures o& the case namely that Respondent himsel& )y his statement dated 1-.1$.1A<- admitted to have received an amount o& Rs.$1!@@@6C and odd and "hich could not )e deposited )y him alon,"ith his associate on account o& their carelessness and &ault. It is di&&icult to appreciate ho" the said statement could )e said to have )een )rou,ht a)out )y any coercion as tried to )e su)mitted on )ehal& o& the respondent. But even apart &rom that the order sheet o& the En?uiry
ig h
employee "as dismissed &rom service. 7is statutory appeal also &ailed. In a
C ou
rt
RNG
21
wp.2296.02
1A.
-. F %he pleas o& the petitioner are ?uite clear. In &act he admitted all the relevant &acts on "hich the decision could )e ,iven a,ainst him and there&ore it cannot )e stated that the en?uiry "as in )reach o& any principle o& natural 8ustice. /t an en?uiry &acts have to )e proved and the person proceeded a,ainst must have an opportunity to crossCeEamine "itnesses and to ,ive his o"n version or eEplanation a)out the evidence on "hich he is char,ed and to lead his de&ence. In this case! the &acts "ere t"oC&old that he had stayed )eyond the sanctioned leave and that he had proceeded on a &ast as a demonstration a,ainst the action o& the authorities and also &or "hat he called the upli&tment o& the country etc. %hese &acts "ere undou)tedly admitted )y him. 7is eEplanation "as also there and it had to )e ta*en into account. %hat eEplanation is o)viously &utile! )ecause persons in the police &orce must )e clear a)out eEtension o& leave )e&ore they a)sent themselves &rom duty. Indeed this is true o& everyone o& the services! unless o& course there are circumstances in "hich a person is una)le to re8oin service! as &or eEample "hen he is desperately ill or is other"ise reasona)ly prevented &rom attendin, to his duties. %his is not the case here. %he petitioner too* upon himsel& the decision as to "hether leave could )e eEtended or not and acted upon it. 7e did ,o on a &ast. 7is later eEplanation "as that he "ent on a &ast &or ?uite a di&&erent reason. %he en?uiry o&&icer had to ,o )y the reasons ,iven )y him. 0n the "hole there&ore the admission "as one o& ,uilty in so &ar as the &acts on "hich the en?uiry "as held and the learned Sin,le 9ud,e in the 7i,h Court "as! in our opinion ri,ht in so holdin,. F .'64$a#"# #244,"'!3
om
ba y
ig h
C ou
o&&icer clearly sho"s that Respondent Pra)ha*ar as "ell as Sa8an umar had su)mitted that they have not to ,ive any documentary or oral evidence and that is ho" their evidence "as closed. Gnder these circumstances the su)se?uent re?uest )y Respondent to eEamine &our more "itnesses "as ri,htly considered )y the En?uiry 0&&icer to )e an a&terthou,ht and accordin,ly such re?uest "as ri,htly re8ected. In &act! on account o& the clear admission contained in "ritin, ,iven )y Respondent on 1-.1$.1A<- the char,e a,ainst him stood proved on admission and the only ?uestion that remained to )e considered "as a)out the nature o& punishment to )e imposed on him.J 1emphasis supplied3
rt
RNG
22
wp.2296.02
$@.
1supra3 their (ordships o& the Supreme Court have o)served as under =
om
ba y
issue arisin, out o& disciplinary proceedin,s. / char,e sheet "as issued to the delin?uent employee! &or a)sence "ithout leave &or a period o& .+ days! the employee had admitted the char,es and promised to )e re,ular. In the disciplinary proceedin,s the employee had accepted his ,uilt "hereupon the in?uiry proceedin,s "ere closed recordin, the admission o& the char,es as made )y the employee. %he disciplinary authority upon consideration o& the in?uiry report held the employee ,uilty o& all the char,es and ordered removal &rom service. In this conteEt! under = the Supreme Court o)served as
$1.
%he 8ud,ment o& the Supreme Court in C$a"%6a( a(! Ma(a "(
ig h
F:. >e &ind that the %ri)unal's conclusions are prima &acie not correct. %he statement made )y the passen,er "ho had paid eEcess money to the chec*in, o&&icer is not in the nature o& hearsay evidence. /dditionally! the e&&ect o& the admission re,ardin, ,uilt as contained in the letters dated 1+.1.1A<A and $-.$.1A<A have not )een considered in the proper perspective. It is a &airly settled position in la" that admission is the )est piece o& evidence a,ainst the person ma*in, the admission. It is ho"ever! open to the person ma*in, the admission to sho" "hy the admission is not to )e acted upon. F .'64$a#"# #244,"'!/
C ou
rt
RNG
23
wp.2296.02
1<. It "as o)served that 8udicial admissions can )e made the &oundation o& the ri,hts o& the parties. 1A. / su)se?uent eEplanation )e&ore another authority! "hich had not )een pleaded in the departmental proceedin,s! cannot )y itsel& )e a ,round to hold that the principles o& natural 8ustice had not )een complied "ith in the disciplinary proceedin,s. .'64$a#"# #244,"'!/
$$.
In a recent 8ud,ment o& the Supreme Court in the case o& Ma(o7
H.M"#$%a )# U("o( of I(!"a 1supra3 %heir (ordships o& the Supreme Court in para +. have o)served as under =
om
ba y
F+.. In our opinion! the learned Sin,le 9ud,e and the #ivision Bench have not committed any error in re8ectin, the su)missions made )y the learned counsel &or the appellant. >e are not inclined to eEamine the issue that the actions o& the appellant "ould not constitute a misconduct under the Rules. In vie" o& the admissions made )y the appellant! no evidence "as adduced )e&ore the en?uiry o&&icer )y either o& the parties. 0nce the en?uiry o&&icer had declined to accept the conditional admissions made )y the appellant! it "as open to him to deny the char,es. But he chose to ma*e an une?uivocal admission instead o& reiteratin, his earlier denial as recorded in preliminary hearin, held on $4C1$C1AA-. %he appellant cannot no" )e permitted to resile &rom the admission made )e&ore the en?uiry o&&icer. %he plea to reopen the en?uiry has )een re8ected )y the appellate as "ell as the revisional authority.J
.'64$a#"# #244,"'!/
$+.
on the 8ud,ment o& the learned Sin,le 9ud,e o& this Court 'r.9ustice
ig h
C ou
F14. 7e in his eEplanation in ans"er to the char,e sheet pleaded ,uilty admittin, the char,es. In terms o& Section .< o& the Evidence /ct! char,es havin, )een admitted "ere not re?uired to )e proved. It "as on that premise that the en?uiry proceedin,s "as closed. Be&ore the en?uiry o&&icer!he did not su)mit the eEplanation o& his mother )ein, ill. 7e despite opportunities ,ranted to report to duty! did not do it. 7e &ailed to eEplain even his prior conduct.J
rt
RNG
24
wp.2296.02
R.'.(odha! 1as 7is (ordship then "as3 in case o& Ca(a%a Ba(1 )# H.T.8o,". 1supra3. #ealin, "ith a case arisin, out o& admission o& the ,uilt in para 4!: and < the &ollo"in, o)servations "ere made=
:. %hus! the &indin, recorded )y the Industrial %ri)unal that the char,e a,ainst the employee is not proved cannot )e sustained. <. (oo*in, to the serious and ,rave nature o& misconduct o& &raud and &or,ery committed )y the employee de&raudin, the employerC)an* and causin, su)stantial monetary loss! it cannot )e said that the punishment o& dismissal in&licted )y the employerC)an* "as un8usti&ied or shoc*in,ly disproportionate to the char,e "hich has )een held proved. F
om
ba y
$-.
similar vie" ta*en )y the learned Sin,le 9ud,e o& this Court )y #r.9ustice #.H.Chandrachud 1as 7is (ordship then "as3 in the case 8o,$a42% 9",,a Sa$a1a%" D2!$a U*4a!a1 Sa( $ )# S$")a7" S$a(1a% P$a%a1a*' 3 a(% 1supra3 "herein the delin?uent employee had admitted the char,es "here the Industrial Court despite admission o& the char,es had ordered reinstatement! it "as o)served in paras A and 1@ as under =
ig h
F 4. 0nce the de&ence o& the employee that his statement made on 'ay $@! 1A<$ and 'ay $1! 1A<$ "as recorded under duress or &orce or pressure is not accepted! the admission o& the employee in une?uivocal term proves his misconduct. I have already o)served a)ove that the &acts and circumstances o& the case do not 8usti&y the conclusion that the statement made )y the employee on 'ay $@! 1A<$ and 'ay $1! 1A<$ "as not voluntary or "as recorded under pressure or &orce and there&ore! the only conclusion that can )e dra"n on the )asis o& the employee's admission is that the char,e a,ainst him is proved.
C ou
rt
RNG
25
wp.2296.02
1@. No" there can )e no dispute a)out the &undamental principle o& la" that an admission o& misconduct! in order to )e accepta)le as a ,round &or holdin, that the char,e is proved! must not )e ?uali&ied or conditional. %he record o& the en?uiry dated $:th 5e)ruary 1AA1 "ould in &act reveal that the incident "hich too* place on 1st /pril 1A<A "as not disputed. %he presence o& the "or*men at 1.+@ a.m. on 1st /pril 1A<A! the presence o& a private tan*er "hich "as )rou,ht into the premises o& the chillin, plant and the role o& the "or*men in actually assistin, and &acilitatin, the &illin, up o& 1@!@@@ litres o& mil* in the tan*er is not in dispute. It must )e noted that it "as not the de&ence o& the "or*men that the incident did not ta*e place or that they "ere &alsely implicated. %he de&ence o& the "or*men at all material times "as that they had acted thus in compliance "ith the direction o& the superior. In these circumstances! the En?uiry 0&&icer made due en?uiries "ith the "or*men on "hether the statement "as voluntarily &urnished and it "as only upon his satis&action that this "as so that the en?uiry "as closed. %he (a)our Court noted that in the en?uiry proceedin,s )oth the complainant "or*men as "ell as their /dvocate put do"n their si,natures. 0nce this "as the case! the (a)our Court "as 8usti&ied in comin, to the conclusion that the char,e o& misconduct stood proved. F
.'64$a#"# #244,"'!/
om
ba y
FA. %he record o& the en?uiry discloses that the "or*men "ere permitted to )e de&ended )y an /dvocate. /&ter the en?uiry had commenced upon the issuance o& a char,e sheet! the evidence o& the mana,ements' "itness! the 'ana,in, #irector o& the petitioner! "as recorded on 11th 9une! 1AA@. 0n $:th 5e)ruary! 1AA1 proceedin,s too* place in the course o& the en?uiry. %he En?uiry 0&&icer noted that the "or*men had su)mitted a representation acceptin, the alle,ation o& misconduct contained in the char,e sheet dated < th /u,ust! 1A<A. %he En?uiry 0&&icer posed several ?uestions to the "or*men to veri&y as to "hether the representations "ere addressed )y the "or*menL "hether they "ere voluntary or other"ise and "hether the alle,ations o& misconduct "ere accepted to the "or*men. %o this the ans"er "as in the a&&irmative. In the letter addressed )y the 5irst respondent to the En?uiry 0&&icer! the incident "hich too* place on 1st /pril 1A<A "as not denied. %here "as an acceptance o& the &act that the "or*men "ere apprehended "hen they had &illed a privately o"ned tan*er on the ni,ht o& the date o& the incident )ut it "as stated that this "as all done at the )ehest o& a superior. %he "or*men prayed that they may )e reinstated in service. F
ig h
C ou
rt
RNG
26
wp.2296.02
$..
employee has admitted to the char,es and that there is no co,ent material to sho" that the admission o& the char,es "as recorded under duress or &orce or pressure and that the admission "as unconditional and in une?uivocal terms! no &ault can )e &ound in the In?uiry 0&&icer closin, the in?uiry proceedin,s. In the present case the disciplinary authority on the )asis o&
that the char,es have )een proved. In our vie"! there "as nothin, unla"&ul on the part o& the disciplinary authority proceedin, on such admission made )y the 1st respondent to pass the order o& dismissal considerin, the seriousness o& the char,es.
om
ba y
$4.
ur,ed on )ehal& o& the petitioner that the Central /dministrative %ri)unal could not have set aside the order o& dismissal as passed )y the disciplinary authority. %here is also merit in the su)mission made )y learned counsel appearin, on )ehal& the petitioner that the 8ud,ment in case o& Ja !"#$ P%a#a! Sa&'(a )# S*a*' of Ma!$+a B$a%a* 1supra3 "as not applica)le in the &acts o& the present case on "hich much reliance "as placed )y the
ig h
the in?uiry report "hich recorded the admission o& the 1st respondent held
C ou
rt
RNG
27
wp.2296.02
learned counsel appearin, on )ehal& o& the 1 st respondent. In this 8ud,ment! the Supreme Court "as dealin, "ith a case "here a char,e sheet "as issued to the delin?uent employee on the )asis o& the alle,ed admissions he had made in the course o& in?uiry directed a,ainst some other ,overnment servant in connection "ith commission o& certain o&&ences! later on the delin?uent employee "as removed &rom service on the stren,th o& the
Service Rules. In these circumstances! it "as held )y the Supreme Court that the statement made )y the delin?uent employee did not amount to unam)i,uous or clear admission o& his ,uilt and &ailure to hold a &ormal in?uiry constituted a serious in&irmity in the order o& dismissal passed
om
ba y
a,ainst him.
F11. It is true that the appellant speci&ically admitted durin, the course or the previous en?uiry that ille,al li?uor had )een delivered to the contractor! and that he had ,iven the *ey o& the receiver to Narona. It is on the stren,th o& those admissions that the 7i,h Court too* the vie" that the appellant had su)stantially admitted his ,uilt and so there "as really no need &or holdin, a &ormal en?uiry a,ainst him a&ter the char,e sheet "as supplied to him. In this connection it is necessary to remem)er that the previous en?uiry "as not directed a,ainst the appellant as such! and he "as certainly not in the position o& an accused in the said en?uiry. In &act! as "e have already indicated! the result o& the said en?uiry "as that the appellant "as a)solved &rom any complicity in the commission o& the o&&ence! and the only criticism made a,ainst him "as that he "as slac* in his supervision! that is "hy he "as trans&erred. In such a case! even i& the appellant
ig h
C ou
rt
RNG
28
wp.2296.02
$:.
It is there&ore! clear that the &acts in the case o& Ja !"#$ P%a#a!
Sa&'(a 1supra3 "ere ?uite di&&erent in as much as the employee "as proceeded "ithout a departmental in?uiry and hence the ratio in the said 8ud,ment "ould not )e applica)le in the &acts o& the present case.
$<.
om
ba y
S*a*' of Ma!$+a P%a!'#$ 1supra3 "as considered )y the Supreme Court in case o& C$a((a0a#a44a Ba#a44a Ha44a," )#.T$' S*a*' of M+#o%' 1supra3 and it "as held that the 9ud,ment "as clearly distin,uisha)le.
$A.
In vie" o& the a&oresaid discussion! "e are o& the vie" that the
Central /dministrative %ri)unal is in a clear error in directin, reinstatement o& the 1st respondent "ith .@ B )ac* "a,es and permittin, the disciplinary in?uiry on reinstatement )y allo"in, the ori,inal /pplication &iled )y the 1st respondent. %he &indin,s o& the Central /dministrative %ri)unal are also
ig h
C ou
had made some statements "hich amounted to admission it is open to dou)t "hether he could )e removed &rom service on the stren,th o& the said alle,ed admissions "ithout holdin, a &ormal en?uiry as re?uired )y the rules. But apart &rom this consideration! i& the statements made )y the appellant do not amount to a clear or unam)i,uous admission o& his ,uilt! &ailure to hold a &ormal en?uiry "ould certainly constitute a serious in&irmity in the order o& dismissal passed a,ainst him. K......J
rt
RNG
29
wp.2296.02
+@.
dated <.+.$@@$ passed )y the Central /dministrative %ri)unal! 'um)ai Bench! 'um)ai in 0./.No.<@< o& 1AA- is ?uashed and set aside. Rule is made a)solute in terms o& prayer clause 1a3.
No order as to costs.
1G.S. ul*arni! 93
ig h
12.'. anade!93
::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2014 09:45:22 :::
om
ba y
C ou
rt