Disciplinary Authority Is Obligated To Follow Rules And Principles Of Natural Justice, Not Only Justice Is Done But Manifestly Seen To Be Done: CAT Cuttack

TheCentral Administrative TribunalCuttack bench of Sudhi Ranjan Mishra (Judicial Member) and Pramod Kumar Das (Administrative Member) held that enquiry proceedings cannot be conducted with the closed mind. It held that the rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but it is manifestly seen to be done. The Tribunal held that: “This Tribunal is also remanded by the legal maxim quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur means what is done contrary to law is considered as not done is a well accepted principle commonly applied to all proceedings. It is also trite law that if a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner and not in any other manner. Further, the maxim sublato fundament cadit opus is a well recognized principle that if the foundation is removed, the superstructure will collapse. It is also well settled proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same.” Brief Facts: The Applicant was working as a Medical Assistant at ARC Hospital in Cuttack. The department issued a chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, alleging omissions and commissions against him. Following an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (“IO”) submitted a report confirming the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority (“DA”) ordered a de-novo inquiry, which was challenged by the Applicant in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (“Tribunal”). This resulted in the matter being remitted back to the DA with directions to resume proceedings from a specific stage within 60 days. Despite this, the DA proceeded with another inquiry and ultimately issued a punishment order. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Tribunal and filed an original application. The department contended that Applicant's actions while working as a Medical Assistant warranted disciplinary action. It issued a chargesheet stating specific instances of misconduct, including inappropriate behavior towards a minor girl and a previous instance of misconduct. The DA, after considering the Applicant's defense, proceeded with the inquiry, which led to a decision for a de-novo inquiry due to perceived flaws. The department argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted within the framework of relevant rules and guidelines, and any delays were not substantial. The Applicant argued that the DA's actions, including conducting a de-novo inquiry and issuing the punishment order, were procedurally flawed and not in accordance with the rules. He argued that the DA exceeded its authority by acting as an Inquiry Officer and imposing a penalty without proper discussion or consideration of his representations. Additionally, he raised concerns about procedural irregularities during the inquiry process, such as discrepancies in daily ordersheets and the lack of supply of relevant documents. Observations by the Tribunal: The Tribunal noted that it in a previous order remitted the matter back to the concerned authority due to questions raised about the inquiry's integrity. However, the DA purportedly proceeded to conduct the inquiry afresh, bypassing procedural safeguards. The Applicant contended that the punishment imposed by the DA lacked consideration of crucial defense points, such as the absence of summons, inadequate maintenance of Departmental Observance Sheets (DOS), irregularities in the inquiry proceedings, denial of defense assistance, and restricted access to documents. The Tribunal referred to the Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which stipulates the actions to be taken upon an inquiry report. The rule mandates that if the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, it may remit the case for further inquiry and report, with explicit provisions for forwarding the inquiry report to the concerned individual for response within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal noted that the DA's forwarding of the inquiry report and the presenting officer's written brief to the Applicant, allowing an opportunity for response. However, it held subsequent proceedings, as outlined by the Applicant, indicated deviations from prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice. Of particular concern was the Apparent failure of the DA to adhere to Rule 15, resulting in a deficiency in the inquiry process. The Tribunal held that the DA conducted the inquiry independently, disregarding procedural requirements such as examining witnesses, providing opportunities for cross-examination, and facilitating the submission of a written brief by the applicant post-inquiry closure. The Tribunal referred to State of UP & Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131, and held that departmental inquiries cannot be treated lightly, requiring diligent adherence to natural justice principles to ensure fairness ...

Disciplinary Authority Is Obligated To Follow Rules And Principles Of Natural Justice, Not Only Justice Is Done But Manifestly Seen To Be Done: CAT Cuttack

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rajesh Kumar

Disciplinary Authority Is Obligated To Follow Rules And Principles Of Natural Justice, Not Only Justice Is Done But Manifestly Seen To Be Done: CAT Cuttack

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers