Permanent Lok Adalat Chairperson’s Removal Quashed After Her Defence Was Closed Before Two Listed Witness Statements Were Recorded: P&H HC

The petitioner was appointed Chairperson of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kapurthala, for five years from 10 May 2017.

Following complaints alleging abuse of position, including issuing oral directions for demolition and acting beyond jurisdiction, the Executive Chairman of the Punjab State Legal Services Authority initiated an inquiry under the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and Other Persons) Rules, 2003.

The petitioner denied the allegations and sought further time and material to prepare her defence.

Although the record showed that statements of two listed witnesses had not been recorded, her request was rejected, her defence was closed, and the allegations were found proved as “unrebutted.”

She was removed on 12 June 2018.

She challenged the closure of her defence and the removal order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Rule 5(e) of the 2003 Rules permits removal where a Chairperson has abused their position so as to render continued service prejudicial to the public interest, but its proviso requires an inquiry in accordance with Rule 6.

Under Rule 6, when allegations are denied, the inquiry must examine their truth and afford the Chairperson an opportunity to meet the evidence and present a defence; removal may follow only if the competent authority is satisfied that the charges are proved on the inquiry report.

The principle in Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719, requires a person facing a charge to know the evidence supporting it and to have a fair opportunity to challenge and rebut that evidence.

State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158, supports the principle that denial of an opportunity to produce witnesses and lead defence evidence can vitiate disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner denied the charges and sought material and time to defend herself; she had not admitted the allegations or declined to participate.

The respondents had recorded that statements of two listed witnesses had not been taken, yet rejected her request, closed her defence, and proceeded to treat the evidence as unrebutted.

Applying Rule 6 and the principles of natural justice, the Court held that the petitioner had been denied an effective opportunity to meet the case against her, causing real prejudice.

The defect concerned the inquiry process itself and was not cured by the subsequent finding that the evidence was unrebutted.

The Court therefore did not reappraise the allegations or decide whether they were true.

The order dated 11 June 2018 closing the petitioner’s defence and the consequential removal order dated 12 June 2018 were quashed for failure to provide an effective opportunity of defence under Rule 6 of the 2003 Rules.

As the petitioner’s five-year tenure had expired, the Court declined to order reinstatement, but directed that her claim for consequential monetary or service benefits, if any, be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.