Facts
The Petitioner, a Rural Health Organizer, challenged the order dated 22/05/2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No. 5
Source reference: para. 1By this order, an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct a departmental inquiry against the Petitioner
Source reference: para. 1, 5The Petitioner contended that these appointments were made without first issuing a charge-sheet, seeking an explanation/reply, or serving the documents required under the statutory rules
Source reference: para. 1, 2The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the order on the grounds of procedural illegality and violation of natural justice
Source reference: para. 2Issues
1. Whether the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer without the prior issuance and service of a charge-sheet is legally sustainable under Rule 14(5) of the CCA Rules, 1966
Source reference: para. 1, 52. Whether the initiation of the enquiry in the absence of a charge-sheet violates the principles of natural justice
Source reference: para. 2, 5Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Rule 14(5) of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (CCA Rules), which prescribes the mandatory procedure for initiating a departmental inquiry, including the requirement to serve a charge-sheet and relevant documents to the delinquent employee
Source reference: para. 1, 5the Court relied on the Principles of Natural Justice, which require that an individual be informed of the allegations against them and provided an opportunity to respond before an inquiry progresses to the appointment of an adjudicating officer
Source reference: para. 2, 5Reasoning
The Court noted that Respondent No. 5 bypassed the mandatory preliminary steps of the disciplinary process
Source reference: para. 5A perusal of the record confirmed that no charge-sheet had been issued or served upon the Petitioner prior to the appointment of the Enquiry and Presenting Officers
Source reference: para. 5The Court reasoned that such a direct appointment is "unsustainable and bad in law" as it skips the essential procedural stage contemplated under Rule 14(5) of the CCA Rules
Source reference: para. 5The Court emphasized that the service of a charge-sheet is a prerequisite that must be satisfied before an Enquiry Officer is appointed
Source reference: para. 5Consequently, the failure to follow this due process resulted in a violation of both statutory mandates and the principles of natural justice
Source reference: para. 5Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the impugned order was procedurally flawed
The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 22/05/2019 (Annexure P/1) was set aside
Source reference: para. 5, 6The Court granted the Respondents liberty to proceed against the Petitioner afresh, provided they strictly adhere to the procedure established under Rule 14(5) of the CCA Rules
Source reference: para. 5Additionally, the Petitioner was granted liberty to reply to a subsequent notice dated 28/11/2019, which the Respondents must consider in accordance with the law
Source reference: para. 5Original Court PDF
TARJAN GUPTAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in