In a significant ruling the Allahabad High Court observed that “Departmental Inquiry against Government Servant not Casual Exercise” and thereby quashed the suspension of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax made without merit.
The present writ petition under Article 226 has been filed assailing the judgment and order passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby Claim Petition filed by the claimant/petitioner against the order of punishment, by which he was awarded two minor penalties i.e. (1) Censure; and (2) stoppage of one increment for one year, has been dismissed.
In all the process of consideration/ resolution of complaint / objection of the candidate (ward no.25) it took considerable time, which eventually led to some delay. It is the case of the petitioner that the delay caused was neither deliberate nor intentional and in any case the entire process and the delay therewith was well within the knowledge of the District Level Election authorities.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, for all practical purposes the authority concerned as having not concluded the departmental enquiry against the petitioner within three months’ time as stipulated by the Single Judge vide order nor had sought for any extension of time from the Court, the same is bad in law.
Thus, it has been argued that in view of the decision of Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd, after expiry of stipulated period, the departmental enquiry ought to have not been conducted and concluded against the employee.
The Standing Counsel submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature, for which disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after appreciating the relevant material on record and also considering the reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty for the charges levelled against him.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi observed that “The order of punishment cannot be held to be legally unsustainable, especially when there is a consistent series of authority on the point that a departmental inquiry against government servant is not to be treated as a casual exercise and the principles of natural justice are required to be observed so as to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.”
The Court concluded by noting that they are inclined to allow the present petition and set-aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. Since the learned Tribunal having called upon to adjudicate the matter in its right perspective has failed to determine and return any findings on the various grounds and issue raised by the petitioner as can be borne out from the claim petition itself filed before the Tribunal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
