High Court Test 5
10 min40 WPM required688 words
Click on the passage and start typing to begin.
The service matter before this Court arises from an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal dated the seventeenth of the preceding month, which dismissed the petitioner's original application and confirmed the order of dismissal from government service passed by the competent disciplinary authority against the petitioner who was employed as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the District Treasury Officer on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty without leave or intimation for a continuous period of twenty-two working days in contravention of Rule 17 of the Central Government Servants' Conduct Rules. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal and the underlying order of dismissal primarily on the ground that the departmental inquiry conducted against him was vitiated by a fundamental procedural infirmity in that the Inquiry Officer's report, which contained adverse findings against the petitioner on the charges framed, was never furnished to the petitioner before the disciplinary authority considered the report and passed the final order of dismissal, thereby denying the petitioner a critical opportunity to demonstrate to the disciplinary authority that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were based on erroneous appreciation of evidence, ignored exculpatory material on record, or were otherwise unsustainable in law or on facts. The respondents, appearing through the learned Government Advocate, have not disputed the factual submission that the copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was not provided to the petitioner before the disciplinary authority passed the final order, but have sought to resist the challenge on the ground that the petitioner was present throughout the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer, had full opportunity to cross-examine the department's witnesses and to lead his own evidence, was represented by a defence assistant of his choice, and has thus suffered no real or substantive prejudice from the non-supply of the inquiry report because he was fully aware of the evidence against him and the findings that the Inquiry Officer was likely to record. The petitioner's counsel has submitted in reply that the issue is no longer open to debate in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in a series of decisions spanning several decades, beginning with Union of India versus Mohan Lal Capoor and followed by numerous decisions reiterating that the furnishing of the inquiry report to the charged employee before the disciplinary authority records its final findings and passes the punishment order is not a technical or dispensable procedural requirement but a substantive right of the employee rooted in the principles of natural justice, that the employee may accept or dispute the findings of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority in the same way that a party may challenge findings of fact before an appellate forum, and that the denial of this right cannot be justified by reference to what the employee was or was not aware of at the stage of the inquiry itself. This Court, after giving careful and anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides, respectfully agrees with and applies the settled position of law as stated by the Supreme Court on this question. The furnishing of the inquiry report to the charged employee before the disciplinary authority applies its mind and records its own findings and punishment is an integral component of the fair procedure to which every government servant charged with misconduct is entitled, and no amount of participation in the inquiry proceedings can substitute for or waive this right unless there is an express and informed waiver by the employee of the right to receive the report. The order of dismissal is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to follow the proper procedure including providing the petitioner with a copy of the inquiry report and an opportunity to submit his representation thereon before passing a fresh order on the question of punishment, which shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. The petitioner's seniority, pay, and allowances during the interregnum shall be determined on the basis of the final order that is passed in the matter after completion of the remitted proceedings.