Irregularities in Disciplinary Proceedings alleged shall be Substantiated with Evidence: Allahabad HC [Read Order]
Allahabad High Court grants finality to the petition filed in 1998 and upholds the mandate of evidence in challenges against irregularities in disciplinary proceedings
Irregularities – Disciplinary Proceedings – Substantiated – Evidence – Allahabad HC – taxscan
Irregularities – Disciplinary Proceedings – Substantiated – Evidence – Allahabad HC – taxscan
A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that disciplinary actions cannot be nullified based solely on concerns or assumptions of potential prejudice to the accused employee.
In a recent ruling on a long-pending writ petition dating back to 1998, the Allahabad High Court clarified an important legal principle. The court emphasized that merely alleging irregularities during a disciplinary process is insufficient grounds to absolve the petitioner of proving actual prejudice.
The decision by Justice Om Prakash Shukla, highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence of prejudice rather than mere apprehensions or suspicions. The judgment underscored that prejudice must be demonstrable as a factual reality or there must be clear indications of potential prejudice arising from specific statutory violations.
Justice Shukla emphasized that anticipating prejudice should not be enough to overturn departmental inquiries.
The case involved a constable hired in 1987 by the Central Industrial Security Force. The petitioner's suspension and subsequent dismissal in 1996 stemmed from allegations of misconduct during Election Duty, including being found asleep during an inspection. Despite the petitioner's claims of a biased inquiry and procedural lapses, the High Court emphasized the importance of fair trial procedures.
The petitioner contended that his requests for a change of the inquiry officer, citing bias, were ignored, and that he was not provided with proper opportunities to defend himself as key documents were not supplied during the inquiry proceedings. Additionally, it was argued that the authority appointing the inquiry officer was not competent under the relevant rules.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that the petitioner received a fair trial with adequate opportunities for hearing. The respondent maintained that allegations of irregularities were insufficient, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced. It was also argued that the appointment of the inquiry officer was within the rules.
The Allahabad High Court, considering precedents and legal principles, held that the petitioner failed to raise objections regarding procedural irregularities in a timely manner.
The bench noted that, “Additionally, in the present writ petition, the petitioner was not able to point out as to which document was not provided to him in the department proceedings. The contention of the petitioner relating to non-supply of documents, in the absence of any specific enumeration, is devoid of merits and as such the present ground of the petitioner fails.”
The Single Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla noted that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry proceedings and had not raised issues of bias during that time.
In result, the court dismissed the petition, finding no substantial evidence of procedural errors or bias during the inquiry.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
