Delhi High Court: No Premium Can be Given to Person Committing Forgery by Directing Re-Instatement on Account of Procedural Faults in Inquiry Proceedings

Delhi High Court: No Premium Can be Given to Person Committing Forgery by Directing Re-Instatement on Account of Procedural Faults in Inquiry Proceedings

The Delhi High Court while partly upholding the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to the extent of setting aside the inquiry proceedings along with the penalty order since the Department failed to examine relevant witnesses, observed that it is a settled legal position that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment on the ground that the inquiry being not properly conducted, the Disciplinary Authority was to conduct the inquiry from the point it stood vitiated.

The Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that, “Rule 14(18) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 has been formulated for enabling the delinquent official to rebut and explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. The Inquiry Officer, as such, is obligated to put the incriminating evidence to the respondent in order to give him a proper opportunity of explaining the circumstances appearing against him unless he is examined in defense.”

In the present case, Petitioner- Union of India contended that the Respondent-SURENDER KUMAR was appointed as a Caretaker in Safdarjung Hospital in 1986 as per Recruitment Rules based on matriculation certificate, and was promoted in the course of his service to the post of Chief Sanitary Superintendent in 2000.

The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent had failed in the Higher Secondary Examination and had got the Job in the Hospital by forging the results and marks in the Mark Sheet submitted with the department.

The departmental inquiry was challenged by the Respondent/delinquent official before the Tribunal primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, on account of failure to examine the relevant witnesses to prove the documents and follow the procedure as contemplated in Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short CCS (CCA) Rules).

The Court noted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the department after it received the complaint from the Central Vigilance Commission wherein the identity of the complainant was directed to be kept confidential in view of Public Interest Disclosure Resolution.

Consequently, the Court partially disagreed with the observations of the Tribunal.

The bench remarked that if the Inquiry Officer conducts the inquiry proceedings as a Prosecutor and puts leading questions on prosecution witnesses exposing a prejudiced or biased mind or in any manner conducts the inquiry proceedings ignoring the principles of natural justice, the inquiry would be considered to be opposed to principles of natural justice.

However, it was clarified by the High Court that the Inquiring Authority was entitled to put questions to the witnesses for clarification if it becomes necessary, so long the delinquent employee was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses after the Inquiry Officer questions the witnesses.

The bench noted that the Tribunal had upheld the contentions raised on behalf of the Respondent finding deficiencies in the conduct of inquiry, in violation of provisions of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules on the ground that instead of examining the concerned Administrative Officer (AO) as a witness on behalf of the department, one Ram Niwas, AO had appeared as a witness without issuing of any formal order by the Disciplinary Authority.

In this regard the Court avowed, “It needs to be kept in perspective that for purpose of proving the verification report qua the certificate in question, the Inquiry Officer was required to prove the same by examining the official from the Board or by examining the official from the department who may have obtained the verification report from the concerned Board. This could have ensured a fair and proper opportunity to the respondent for furnishing his defense/explanation, if any, qua the certificate in question.”

Therefore, the substitute AO, who had not participated in obtaining the verification report, could not have proved the verification report received from the Board, on record, opined the Court.

Moreover, in terms of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, after the prosecution evidence was over, the charged officer was required to submit his statement of defense indicating his line of defense, if any. The evidence was to be led in the same manner giving an opportunity of cross- examination to the Presenting Officer, highlighted the bench.

It was noted by the bench that the statement of the Respondent recorded in defense had not been placed on record or even discussed in the Inquiry Report.

In this regard the Court observed that Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been formulated for enabling the delinquent official to rebut and explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence.

Averting to the present case, the Court said, “the respondent allegedly would not be qualified or eligible for recruitment in service on account of producing a forged certificate, which entails serious consequences. A premium cannot be given to a person who allegedly committed forgery, by directing re-instatement on account of procedural faults in the inquiry proceedings.”

To conclude, the Court therefore set aside the order passed by the Tribunal directing re-instatement of the Respondent with back wages, and remanded the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point it stood vitiated.