In this post we will discuss about removal from service on basis of Internal Inquiry wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal held that, the internal enquiry conducted by the I.O during the investigation process was done in a fair and just manner by following all the necessary steps and therefore there is no reason to question such a decision.
Topic-Removal from Service (Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate For Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate v. Union of India)
Through this analysis, we will try to understand the role that can be played by a court or a tribunal in cases of penalties being levied upon employees as a result of the internal enquiry. This analysis will provide an in-depth assimilation of the conditions under which the courts and tribunals can request the organizations to reconsider their decisions in such matters. It will also highlight certain situations under which action taken against a employee, in the form of penalty, on the basis of internal enquiry, is justified. Lastly, with the help of the various cases cited in the judgement of this particular case, this analysis will explain the premise necessary for the granting of any relief in such a matter and give a solid idea so as to understand what can be considered to be an exceptional case allowing the courts and tribunals the authorities to interfere in the internal decisions of various authorities in cases similar to the one under study.
ALSO READ- REMOVAL FROM SERVICE CHALLENGED IN HIGH COURT AFTER CAT TRIBUNAL
Facts
This Original Application (O.A) has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 6.12.2018 vide which penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon him and order dated 26.11.2019 vide which his appeal has also been rejected by the appellate authority. The facts which lead to filing of this Original Application are that the applicant, while working as UDC at Ludhiana, was issued a charge sheet dated 8.12.2017 under regulation 14 and para 3 of the Third Schedule of ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959, with the allegations that he used impersonation in written examination held on 8.11.2009 at D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, for the post of Lower Division Clerk in ESI Corpn. thus, he got the employment in the Corporation on the basis of a fraud and secondly, he gave false information in Attestation Form, about his trial in Court of Additional Sessions judge-I, Hilsa, District Nalanda, Bihar in criminal case u/s 367/34 IPC registered against him vide FIR No. 274/05 dated 11.10.2015, at Chandi Police Station, District Nalanda, Bihar. The enquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the IO on 10.8.2018, holding that applicant is guilty of charge no. I and charge No.2 loses its significance in view of first charge having been proved. The applicant submitted a reply dated 30.8.2018 and ultimately penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him vide order dated 6.12.2018. The appeal dated 1.1.2019 filed by him was also rejected vide a detailed order dated 26.11.2019, hence the O.A. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable as no action could be taken on anonymous / pseudonymous complaint as per CVC instructions dated 7.3.2016 and even if there was wrong information in attestation form, courts have ruled to take a lenient view. The non mention of criminal case in form was an inadvertent mistake on part of the applicant. If there are two different FSL reports, then third view was warranted to reach to the truth of the matter. No irregularity or discrepancy has taken place in conduct of examination, as per evidence on record. No charge of impersonation is made out from the record of the case. The CFSL report is full of doubts and cannot be relied upon by the respondents. The impugned orders are based on conjectures and surmise and as such cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
ALSO READ- CHALLENGE SUSPENSION FROM GOVERNMENT JOB IN COURT
Issues Involved
(i) Whether the internal enquiry conducted against the applicant was done in a fair and just manner, and can thus be considered reliable?
(ii) Whether the applicant is responsible for the two charges levied upon him, namely, malpractice during the selection examination of the post under question and hiding facts in the application form for the same?
(iii) Whether the courts and tribunals can adjudicate the penalties set as a result of internal inquiries of a organization?
(iv) Whether the present appeal stands valid?
Cite Judgments Quoted on Settled Law
- Bank of India Vs. Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762– In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.
- C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union Of India (1995) 6 SCC 749- In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, even though the Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally substitute their own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authorities shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal it would be appropriate to grant the relief either directing the disciplinary, or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty. The present case does not fall in that exception, at all, from any angle.
ALSO READ- DISMISSAL CHALLENGED PUNJAB EDUCATION TRIBUNAL UPHELD BY HIGH COURT
- R. Tewari Vs. Union of India & Another, 2013 (3) SCT 461 – In this case the Hon’ble Court held that that the Court must keep in mind that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge, as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court cannot arrive on its own independent finding.
- Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, 2006 (1) SCT 588 – In this case the Hon’ble Court held that It is well settled law that a Tribunal or court of law can interfere in disciplinary proceedings only on limited grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of interference in disciplinary proceedings including penalty.
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh S/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 2286 – – In this case the Hon’ble Court held that that the Court must keep in mind that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge, as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court cannot arrive on its own independent finding.
ALSO READ- HIGH COURT APPEAL AGAINST EDUCATION TRIBUNAL PUNJAB ORDER
Findings of Court
In this particular case under study, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that, the internal enquiry conducted by the I.O during the investigation process was done in a fair and just manner by following all the necessary steps and therefore there is no reason to question such a decision. The Hon’ble tribunal while hold the same stated that, A perusal of the enquiry report would show that the I.O. has conducted a proper enquiry providing applicant proper opportunity to defend himself. The I.O. has discussed documentary and oral evidence in detail including report of CFSL. A clear cut fining is there that the person who appeared in the examination held on 8.11.2009 and who signed and wrote the OM sheet was a different person from the person who applied for the post of LDC. The defence witnesses have also been considered by the I.O. and after examination of written and oral evidence, the findings have been recorded against the applicant proving the charge No.1 fully against him. The 2nd charge was accepted by applicant and he had also tendered apology and as such IO recorded that this charge loses its sheen, when charge no.1 stands proved. The applicant was given show cause notice to which he submitted a reply claiming that there are two divergent opinions of hand writing experts etc. and as such 3rd opinion as warranted and that he had made an inadvertent mistake for which he should not be punished harshly. Rejecting the pleas taken by applicant, the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him by the D.A. Then applicant filed an appeal dated 1.1.2019, which was decided on 26.11.2019, rejecting the same. Therefore the Hon’ble tribunal found the punishment imposed upon applicant is found to be in consonance with the charge levelled and proved against him. The Hon’ble tribunal also held that as the court finds the charges to have been investigated in a correct manner, therefore the accusations made against the applicant are also held to be true. While relying upon the various landmark judgements as a form of precedence, the Hon’ble tribunal held that any court or tribunal may interfere into an internal enquiry only under the exceptional circumstance of gross injustice, that too only to the extent of requesting the internal body to reconsider its decision. In the present case under study, as no such gross misconduct was noticed, therefore the Hon’ble tribunal held that this present case doesn’t fall under the category of such exception circumstances and hence the tribunal doesn’t have the power to review the decision made as per the internal enquiry of the organization. Lastly in the light of the holdings stated above, the Hon’ble tribunal held that the application lacked any substance and therefore dismissed the same.
ALSO READ- DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PROCEDURE IN INDIA
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can say that in cases of internal inquiries of an organization, courts and tribunals only have a limited jurisdiction as far as judicial review is concerned. Such limited jurisdiction can only be utilized in exceptional cases of gross misconduct in sentencing penalties, only to the extent of requesting the internal body to reconsider its decision. In the cases the court found that the decision taken so as to sentence a penalty for the applicant through the internal enquiry was done in the most fair and just manner by following all the necessary steps and the court also found the finding of the enquiry to be correct and therefore there was no gross misconduct noticed in this particular case and therefore it can be said that this particular case doesn’t fall under the ambit of judicial review by courts and tribunals. If the enquiry conducted by the internal body is found to be done in the most appropriate manner by following all the necessary steps and it is founds the outcome of the enquiry in the form of findings and penalties is the most appropriate in nature, then in such a case the courts and tribunals don’t have the power to review such a decision taken. An application requesting for the same is hence out of the power of the courts and tribunals to adjudicate upon. Hence such applications are not entertained and are rejected at such courts and tribunals.
This post is written by Aparna Tripathi
For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Service Matter Expert related to termination/removal from service in government job in High Court or CAT Tribunal bench.
More info on 99888-17966.
This post covers topics related to supreme court judgement on dismissal from service, disciplinary proceedings against govt. servant, dopt circulars on disciplinary proceedings ,departmental enquiry ,manual quashing of departmental enquiry, quashing of disciplinary proceedings, stay on departmental enquiry, handbook for inquiry officers and disciplinary authorities.
