AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the order dated 19.05.2020 (Annexure P-3), vide which, he was saddled with the punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments with prospective effect, and also the order dated 18.08.2020 (Annexure P-5), whereby, the statutory appeal preferred against the abovesaid order has also been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the inquiry report, neither of the two charges framed against the petitioner, stood proved. However, the Punishing Authority, while overlooking the abovesaid factual aspect of the matter, imposed the punishment upon him on the basis of same very charges. He further submits that even the Appellate Authority failed to record any reasons, least plausible, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, thereby rendering the order dated 18.08.2020, totally cryptic.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that, in fact, one of the charges was found to be proved against the petitioner, in terms of the enquiry report, therefore, there is no illegality in the order, vide which, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the record.
The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet (Annexure P-1), under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1970, with the following charges:-
“Sh. Jai Inder, Senior Assistant, Pension Grant-2 Branch, Office of the Director Education Department (SEC), Punjab is charged that: 1. A meeting of all the dealing assistants working in the branches under him was taken by the Assistant Director (P.A.S.), Office Director Education Department (S.E.), Punjab on 04.10.2018. In the meeting all the Dealing Assistants presented the progress report regarding their respective cases, but Sh. Jai Inder, Senior Assistant, answered the questions put to him by his Assistant Director (P.A.S.) in the opposite direction and he Deliberately tried to insult the Assistant Director (P.A.S.). By doing this he disobeyed the orders of his senior officers and tried to abuse them.
2.It is further alleged against him that an audio clip which has gone viral on social media, in which he is heard having a conversation with a person regarding taking an illegal bribe of Rs.2000/- for grant work. After this audio clip went viral on social media, this department has been brought into a lot of disrepute because soliciting/taking bribe for any work done by a government employee is a criminal offense and is also gross misconduct of a government employee. This has tarnished A the image of the department...”
In response, the petitioner submitted a reply controverting the allegations leveled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority, being dissatisfied, appointed the Deputy Director-cum-Director of Administration as an Inquiry Officer to conduct a regular enquiry in the matter. After a thorough inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, submitted his report, wherein, it has not been mentioned that charge No.1 stood proved, yet the Inquiry Officer concluded that behavior of the delinquent towards higher officials appeared to be inappropriate. As regards charge No.2, it has been categorically recorded that the allegation was not proved. The relevant findings are extracted hereinbelow:-
“….Conclusion. After examining the above statements, the uridersign has come to the conclusion that charge no. 1 that he insulted the Assistant Director (P.A.S.), but according to the statements of the Assistant Director (P.A.S.) it is written that sh. jai Inder tried to insult him. At the time of investigation, after reading the statements of Assistant Director (P.A.S.) by sh. Jai Inder, it has been written that Insults are either committed or not committed. No offense intended, rather The Assistant Director (P.A.S.) should have cleared that his insult has been done. During the investigation, it has come to our attention that the Assistant Director (P.A.S.), Mr Pawan Kumar has been transferred from the head office to the field. In reference to the above and from the statements of the Assistant Director, it appears that Mr. Jai Inder opposite answers to the queries of the Assistant Director (P.A.S.) Mr. Pawan Kumar was untoward thus Mr. Jai Inder's behavior towards higher officials seems to be not appropriate.
2.As far as charge no. 2 is related to the audio clip, in which there is talk of payment of Rs.2000/- in exchange for work, although an affidavit has been sent by Mr. Bihari Lal Doda to the undersign, but despite repeated request to sh. Bihari lal presence for investigation, Mr. Jai Inder and Mr. Bihari Lal Doda could not be brought face-to-face for cross-examination due to Mr. Bihari Lal's inability to attend. According to the conversation of the audio clip, there is talk of a transaction of Rs.2000/- between two persons, but it is not clear, there is no definite proof that Jai Inder made a call to Bihari Lal Doda's mobile phone, why? Because Mr. Jai Inder's mobile phone was prepaid, the evidence of the call record could not be obtained, thus, due to the absence of any concrete evidence and Mr. Bihari Lal Doda's inability to participate in the investigation, this allegation was not proved based on the principle of benefit of doubt.”
Thereafter, the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, enabling him to file a response thereto, besides affording him a personal hearing. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority, vide impugned order dated 19.05.2020 (Annexure P-3), imposed the punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments with prospective effect.
In the wake of the abovesaid narration of events, what has surprised this Court is that the Disciplinary Authority, on its own, proceeded to treat the charges as having been proved against the petitioner, which is contrary to the true import of inquiry report. During the course of hearing, this Court posed a specific query, as to whether, the Punishing Authority had ever disapproved the inquiry report, before imposing the punishment, to which, learned State counsel answered in the negative. Rather, he conceded that the inquiry report was duly accepted, and the petitioner was served with a notice to respond thereto.
The abovesaid admitted position necessitates this Court to observe that the Disciplinary Authority erred, while considering the charges to have been proved against the petitioner, which resulted in the abovesaid punishment. Not only that, the Punishing Authority had also categorically observed that the petitioner committed gross misconduct by misbehaving with his superiors. So much so, the image of the department was tarnished by an audio call demanding bribe. It needs to be reiterated that as regards charge No.1, the Inquiry Officer, observed, in no uncertain terms, that behavior of the delinquent towards higher official seemed to be inappropriate. And insofar as charge No.2, in relation to demand of bribe is concerned, the same was not proved.
In such circumstances, no reason is forthcoming which compelled the Disciplinary Authority to arrive at such a baseless conclusion. It seems that either the Disciplinary Authority could not understand the purport of the inquiry report, wherein, there is no finding that charges stood proved, or it had already inclined/determined to punish the petitioner.
So far as the appeal preferred by the petitioner is concerned, the Appellate Authority also failed to assign any cogent reasons, in support of its order. A bare perusal of the order dated 18.08.2020 (P-5), shows that the Appellate Authority had decided the appeal in a most cursory manner, only to discharge its obligation of deciding the appeal, to say the least.
In conspectus of the position narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are untenable, and the same are set aside. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed.