The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, has quashed the removal orders of two Class-IV employees, holding that a disciplinary inquiry cannot be reduced to a mere “question-answer session.” Justice J.J. Munir underscored that such proceedings must be conducted by following the proper procedure, which includes the mandatory recording of evidence to prove charges. The Court found the inquiries in question were vitiated by a fundamentally flawed process and perverse findings based on no evidence, ordering the reinstatement of both employees.
The judgment was delivered in two connected writ petitions filed by Jai Prakash and Nanku Ram, both Class-IV employees at Vikramaditya Inter College, Sikandra, Prayagraj. The petitioners were represented by Advocates Mr. Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay and Mr. Vikas Budhwar. The respondents were represented by a team of counsels including Mr. K.R. Singh, Mr. Krishna Ji Khare, Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, Mr. Vimal Chandra Mishra, and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state.
Background of the Cases
The matter began when Jai Prakash, a Chowkidar, staked his claim for promotion. Shortly after, he faced disciplinary action. Similarly, Nanku Ram, a Mali, who had also claimed promotion, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Both petitioners alleged the actions were initiated with mala fide intent to clear the path for the promotion of the College Manager’s nephew, Janardan Singh.
Charges Against Jai Prakash (Writ-A No. 15765 of 2014)
Jai Prakash faced a charge-sheet with allegations including theft of official documents, conspiring with Nanku Ram, filing a pseudonymous complaint, coercing colleagues, misleading the High Court, and using threatening language. Following an inquiry, he was removed from service on February 1, 2014.
Charges Against Nanku Ram (Writ-A No. 51031 of 2015)
Nanku Ram was charged with forging signatures of clerks on official documents, stealing institutional records to facilitate a PIL, and sending an unsigned letter to the Principal. He was terminated on October 7, 2013, and his appeal was subsequently dismissed.
The Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice J.J. Munir conducted a detailed examination of the inquiry reports, finding grave procedural illegalities and a complete lack of evidence.
Inquiry Cannot be a ‘Question-Answer’ Session:
The Court identified the most severe procedural flaws in the inquiry against Nanku Ram. It noted that the Inquiry Officer had adopted a “question-answer mode of inquiry,” which the Court held was “certainly not the procedure countenanced by the law to prove a charge against an employee, which may lead to the imposition of a major penalty.”
The judgment emphasized the mandatory requirement of recording evidence, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another (2024), which held that “the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory.” The Court also found a “denial of natural justice” because Nanku Ram, a gardener with limited educational skills, was not offered the assistance of a defence assistant.
Findings Based on ‘No Evidence’:
In Jai Prakash’s case, the Court found that the Inquiry Officer held every charge proved “without any evidence led on behalf of the establishment.”
- On the charge of theft, the Court noted, “there is absolutely no material considered by the Inquiry Officer to hold the charge proved. There is no first information report… nor testimony of witnesses.”
- The charge of coercing colleagues was held to be based on a “conclusion that is outrightly perverse,” as the employees allegedly threatened were never produced as witnesses.
- The Court deemed the charge of misleading the High Court a “non-charge,” stating, “It is no business of the employer to take cognizance of suppression of facts… from this Court in a writ petition as service misconduct.”
- Similarly, the charge of sending an unsigned letter against Nanku Ram was dismissed as a “non-charge.”
The Court concluded that the Disciplinary Authority had “blindfoldedly accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer.”
Final Decision
Based on its analysis, the High Court passed the following orders:
- Writ-A No. 15765 of 2014 (Jai Prakash): The petition was allowed. The removal order was quashed, and the Court issued a mandamus for the “immediate reinstatement of the petitioner… with all consequential benefits of seniority and emoluments.”
- Writ-A No. 51031 of 2015 (Nanku Ram): The petition was allowed in part. The removal and appellate orders were quashed, and he is to be reinstated forthwith. However, the Court granted liberty to the institution “to pursue fresh proceedings from the stage of the charge-sheet against the petitioner on Charges No.1 and 2 alone,” but not on the other charges. Any fresh proceedings must strictly adhere to the proper procedure.
