'Non Supply Of Inquiry Report To Accused Delinquent Vitates Punishment Order': MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the punishment order of an In-Charge Principal of Government College, observing that the disciplinary authority failed to furnish the inquiry report to the employee, thus vitating the punishment order.

The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat held;

"As the copy of the inquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioner and an opportunity of being heard has not been extended to the petitioner to file a reply to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the punishment order has been passed on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner vitiates the order of punishment passed by the respondent/authority".

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on an ad hoc basis on November 6, 1984. In 2012, while she was working as the In-Charge Principal, she was placed under suspension on August 28, 2012, and her headquarters were fixed at Bhind. She remained there until the suspension was revoked on December 6, 2012.

A sudden inspection was conducted on August 27, 2012, following which a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on two charges. It was alleged that she was absent from the college and that, according to the attendance registrar, she remained absent since August 1, 2012.

In her reply, she denied the charges and submitted an explanation. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated; however, the statements of witnesses were not recorded in the presence of the petitioner. She was also not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to examine the documents relied upon in the inquiry.

The petitioner, however, submitted a letter dated November 29, 2012, written by the principal of Government Mahavidyalaya to respondent no 2, along with a certificate confirming her presence.

The disciplinary authority, relying on the inquiry report dated February 17, 2014, passed an order of punishment on July 5, 2014, imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect. The disciplinary authority neither recorded any reasons in the punishment order not eturned any independent findings on the charges.

Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but it was rejected by passing a completely non-speaking and cryptic order on October 19, 2015. Thus, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that even where the disciplinary proceedings culminated in a minor penalty, the employee is entitled to salary for the suspension period. Despite this settled position, the salary for the said period was not granted to the petitioner.

The court emphasized that while imposing the punishment upon a government servant, the disciplinary authority exercises its quasi-judicial powers. Therefore, even quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders, where the disciplinary authority applies its mind to all the facts and circumstances and records valid and justifiable reasons in support of its conclusions.

In the present case, the court noted that the punishment order was not speaking order. Further, it was noted that neither the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner nor was she given the opportunity to submit her reply to the findings of the inquiry officer. Thus, the punishment order was passed solely on the basis of the inquiry report.

The court thus held that since the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, it vitiated the order of punishment passed by the authorities.

Therefore, the court set aside the punishment order and directed the respondents to grant increments of year 2013 and 2014 and to pay arrears arising therefrom.

Case Title: Smt Karuna Bajpai v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP. No. 813 2016]

For Petitioner: Advocate Sonal Mittal

For State: Government Advocate B.M. Patel

Click here to read/download the Order