The Supreme Court on Monday emphasized the mandatory requirement of recording oral evidence in disciplinary proceedings against public servants when the inquiry suggests a major penalty under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
The apex court overturned a decision by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld a disciplinary order against an officer, an assistant commissioner of commercial tax, who was disciplined in November 2014 with a censure and a two-grade increment stoppage with cumulative effects.
Challenging the disciplinary penalty, the officer initially succeeded at the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which overturned the order and entitled him to all consequential benefits. However, this decision was later reversed by the high court on July 30, 2018.
Taking the matter to the Supreme Court, the officer contested the high court’s ruling. Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the case, confirmed that the penalty levied was significant as defined by the 1999 Rules. The justices noted, “The inquiry proceedings… were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.”
Rule 7 (vii) of the 1999 Rules explicitly requires that if a government servant denies the charges, the inquiry officer must call the witnesses listed in the chargesheet and record their oral testimony in the presence of the accused, who should have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. “Hence, the recording of oral evidence is a mandate under sub-rule (vii) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, when the inquiry proposes the imposition of a major penalty,” stated the apex court.
The bench criticized the high court’s decision for deviating from established legal standards and reinstated the tribunal’s original judgment. “The impugned judgment dated July 30, 2018, is hereby quashed and set aside and the order dated June 5, 2015, rendered by the Public Service Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh is restored,” the bench declared, reaffirming the officer’s entitlement to all consequential benefits.
