In a significant judgment emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural rules in disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court quashed penalties imposed on Satyendra Singh, an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax in Uttar Pradesh. The apex court restored an earlier tribunal order, holding that the inquiry against Singh was invalid due to the failure to record oral evidence, a mandatory requirement under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Background of the Case
Satyendra Singh was serving as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Khand-13, Ghaziabad, when he faced disciplinary proceedings based on allegations of procedural lapses in 2012. A charge sheet was issued, and the inquiry officer submitted a report later that year. On November 5, 2014, the disciplinary authority imposed a “Censure Entry” and ordered the withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect.
Singh challenged this order before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal in 2014. In 2015, the tribunal quashed the penalty, holding that the findings of the inquiry officer were irrational and unsupported by evidence. However, this decision was overturned by the Allahabad High Court in 2018, prompting Singh to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Addressed
1. Adherence to Procedural Rules
The central issue was whether the disciplinary inquiry complied with Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Rule 7 outlines the procedure for imposing major penalties and mandates the examination of witnesses in the presence of the accused officer, who must be given the opportunity to cross-examine them.
2. Recording of Evidence
The inquiry officer failed to call witnesses or record oral evidence to substantiate the charges against Singh. The court was tasked with determining whether this procedural lapse invalidated the inquiry and rendered the penalty order unsustainable.
3. Principles of Natural Justice
The case also raised the broader question of whether the failure to follow due process in disciplinary proceedings violated Singh’s right to a fair inquiry under the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta, meticulously analyzed the procedural flaws in the inquiry. The court made the following key observations:
– Mandatory Recording of Evidence:
Rule 7(3)(vii) of the 1999 Rules explicitly requires that when a government servant denies the charges, the inquiry officer must record oral evidence of the witnesses listed in the charge sheet. The charged officer must also be allowed to cross-examine these witnesses and present witnesses in their defense. The court observed:
“Recording of oral evidence in support of charges against the Government servant is a mandate…when the inquiry proposes imposition of a major penalty.”
– Failure to Follow Due Process:
The court noted that no witnesses were examined, and the inquiry officer relied solely on documents without proving their contents through oral testimony. Citing the precedent set in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, the court reiterated:
“Mere production of documents is not enough; their contents must be proved by examining witnesses. A disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of major punishment is vitiated if no evidence is recorded.”
– Violation of Natural Justice:
The inquiry proceedings failed to provide Singh a fair opportunity to contest the charges. The court observed that reliance on unproven documents without the examination of witnesses amounted to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court’s Decision
After detailed deliberations, the Supreme Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings against Singh were fundamentally flawed due to the failure to record evidence, as required under Rule 7. The court made the following rulings:
1. Quashing of High Court’s Judgment:
The court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s 2018 judgment, which had upheld the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
2. Restoration of Tribunal’s Order:
The Public Services Tribunal’s 2015 order, which had quashed the penalties and directed the restoration of Singh’s benefits, was reinstated.
3. Entitlement to Benefits:
Singh was declared entitled to all consequential benefits. The court directed the state government to ensure payment of monetary benefits within two months, with an interest rate of 6% per annum in case of delay.
