I have been terminated from service by following illegal proceedings in a departmental enquiry. There was a specific allegation against me that I gave three lakh rupees to the casual employees without obtaining proper sanction from the finance controller. However, there was an order of the superior officer dated 12-05-2016 to enhance the monthly allowance of the daily wagers in Khareef season. There was no such enhancement in the Ravi season. That is why I gave an increment to the daily wagers. This fact surfaced when one of the branch managers approached the higher authority for enhancement of wages in pursuance of the order dated 12-05-2016. That order was still prevailing but due to some enmity an enquiry was set up against me for such an enhancement.
There are sixteen branches for purchase of Kharif grains. Thirteen of them were giving enhanced wages. I was one of them. But an inquiry was set up against me only. In this scenario, the departmental enquiry was initiated. No document and statement of witnesses were produced to me while framing charges. Finally passed an order of dismissal from the service. I have sent the charge sheet and preliminary inquiry report. Please go through it and advise about the further steps.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
The proceedings of departmental enquiry are illegal and violative of settled principles of law. You have been punished with a major punishment. Therefore, it was mandatory for the enquiry officer to appreciate evidence and examine the statement of witnesses to establish the charges.
In your case, oral evidence has not been recorded. No witness was called to prove the charge. Documentary evidence, however, was already in possession of the department, but the enquiry officer did not establish it as true. The enquiry officer has acted as an agent of the department whereas it is settled principle of law that the enquiry officer is not a mouthpiece of the department.
In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 the Supreme Court has held that
Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, the Supreme Court has clearly been held that
Enquiry Officer acts as a quasi-judicial authority and his position is that of an independent adjudicator and further that he cannot act as a representative of the department or disciplinary authority and further that he cannot act as a prosecutor neither he should act as a judge; his function is to examine the evidence presented by the department and even in the absence of the delinquent officer, has to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to bring home the charges.
Thus, it was the bounden duty of the enquiry officer to record the statement of witness and examine other evidence produced in support of the charge. In your case no oral evidence was produced.
In State of U.P. v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, (1997) 1 LLJ 831 the Supreme Court has held that holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty. As well as the division bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Kishori Lal, (2018) 9 ADJ 397 (DB) (LB) held that
in a case where the inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is mandatory. The charges are not deemed to be proved suo motu merely on account of levelling them by means of the charge-sheet unless the same are proved by the department before the inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the turn of delinquent employee to place his defence.
In the above discussion it is clear that it was the duty of the enquiry officer to substantiate or establish the charges after examination of oral evidence and documentary evidence. When major punishment is likely to be imposed it was mandatory for the enquiry officer to record oral evidence.
In your case no oral evidence was recorded about the enhancement of salary of daily wagers, no daily wagers was produced as a witness to prove that he received enhanced wages. No oral evidence was recorded about the enhanced salary given by other managers of the same district. The government order dated 12-05-2016 was also not established.
It proves that the enquiry is conducted in violation of the settled principle of law. You should file a writ petition in the high court under Article 226 of the constitution of India for quashing of dismissal order. That impugned order is liable to be quashed in light of above-mentioned case laws.
