supporting witnesses, therefore, the existing material were not sufficient to impose such major penalty.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1930 OF 2007
Rahul Abhimanyu Ranpise Vs. State of Maharashtra
CORAM :- D.K. DESHMUKH &
ANOOP V . MOHTA, JJ.
Dated :- 24 JANUARY 2012.
JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J):-
The Petitioner (Ex-Judicial Officer), has challenged order dated 31 October 2006 passed by the Joint Secretary in the name of
Governor of Maharashtra by which he was dismissed from the service on the basis of the charges framed against him of the incidents, during his tenure as Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana, after holding Departmental Inquiry, by invoking Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (for short, Maharashtra Services Rules, 1979).
2 The Petitioner filed the present Petition on 18 December 2006. Respondent No.2 filed its reply on 4 May 2007 and resisted the contents, as well as, the prayers. The Petitioner filed its rejoinder dated 6 July 2007. This Court admitted the Petition on 28 July 2007, but there was no interim order granted in favour of the Petitioner. The matter was expedited and ultimately heard finally. 3 The Petitioner had passed examination for the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 4 October 1998, called for an interview and as selected on 1 September 1999, joined as a Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nagpur. He was confirmed on 1 September 2001 after completion of the probation period. He consented, as asked, for the posting of Assistant Charity Commissioner in January 2003. He was transferred to Shahada, District Nandurbar in June 2003. The
Petitioner joined as Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana on 15 December 2003. During his tenure as Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana, he was also given an additional charge of Akola from 15 May 2004 to 15 December 2004. Being Assistant Charity Commissioner, and as instructed he fixed inspection of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon (the trust) for the period from 19 July 2004 to 23 July 2004.
4 As recorded, there was memo-reading in presence of the Trustees on 19 July 2004 after completion of the inspection on 23 July 2004. The Petitioner apprises to the Trustees that the record and the administration of the Trust was satisfactory. The Petitioner completed the inspection and the counter signed Inspection report was made available to the Trust on 8/10 October 2004.
5 In the meantime, based upon an anonymous complaint dated 7 September 2004, unsupported by any affidavit, the District Judge Akola, on 23 September 2004 and 30 September 2004, recorded the statements of two witnesses, but it was also without any supporting affidavit and oath. The District Judge unable to secure the presence of those five Complainants/devotees who had sent the complaint. There
was no complaint even made by these two witnesses before making the statements. The inquiry was initiated by the High Court. 6 The Petitioner was transferred back to Nagpur as Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Civil Judge, Junior Division, on 15 December 2004. On 18 December 2004, the Petitioner was placed under suspension.
7 On 5 February 2005, the Petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule-8 of Maharashtra Services Rules- 1979, alleging that the Petitioner had fixed a programme for the verification of accounts of the Trust from 19 July 2004 to 23 July 2004 and the Petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- from Shri Vijay Patil, a Supervisor of the Trust for issuing certificate of correctness of the account in favour of the Trust and thereby committed gross misconduct under Rule-3 (1) (i) of the Maharashtra Services Rules-1979. It was further alleged that on 26 August 2004, the Petitioner on telephone directed Shri Gopal Gite, an Accountant of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon to send one hired vehicle for going to Ujjain and Omkareshwar.
Shri Gite sent Tata Sumo Jeep with driver Gajanan Shinde in
which the Petitioner had gone to Ujjain and Omkareshwar but refused to pay charges of Rs.4,675/- to the jeep driver and the Petitioner told the jeep driver to recover those charges from Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon.
It was alleged that all the above acts show that the Petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and committed gross misconduct as defined in Maharashtra Rules, 1979.
8 On 23 February 2005, the Petitioner denied the charges and replied as under :
The Petitioner submitted that pursuant to a circular issued by Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, it was necessary to conduct inspection of the Trust properties in respect of 37 points mentioned in the Circular and accordingly inspection was fixed. It was apprehension of the Trustees that the State of Maharashtra would also ban the powers of Trustees to manage the affairs of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, as was done in the case of Shirdi Sansthan and due to this threat and with a view to stigmatize the inspection report, a strategy of making absolutely false and vexatious allegations was adopted.
The Petitioner denied that he ever went to VIP room and 6 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
demanded amount from Shri Vijay Patil.
In so far as second charge is concerned, the Petitioner replied that he had never talked with Shri G.S. Gite on 26 August 2004 to send one hired vehicle for going to Omkareshwar. The Petitioner denied that Shri Gite sent one Tata Sumo Jeep.
The Petitioner submitted that he had to carry out inspection at Omkareshwar and therefore, he had instructed to his office Superintendent Shri T.D. Deshmukh to make the arrangement for the vehicle.
9 On 22 March 2005, the Petitioner received a revised charge sheet in which it was alleged that the Petitioner demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from Vijay Patil for issuing the favourable inspection report.
10 In the month of April 2005, the Petitioner submitted revised reply in first week of April 2005.
The Petitioner denied the charges and submitted that the Trustees undertook all attempts to stall the inspection and when they could not stop the inspection, they resorted to making such allegations.
7 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
11 On 4 May 2005, Shri M.R. Puranik, Additional District Judge, Khamgaon was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Petitioner was allowed to engage a legal practitioner of his choice to defend himself. Shri A.B. Tapre, Advocate, Khamgaon was appointed as Presiding Officer to represent the department in the disciplinary proceedings. 12 On 17 August 2005, the Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and recorded the deposition of Shri Vijay Namdeo Patil (PW 1). On 11 September 2005, the deposition of Shri Shivshankar Sukhdeo Patil (PW 2) was recorded. On 20 October 2005, the deposition of Shri Gajanan Devidas Shinde (PW 4) was recorded. On 21 November 2005, the deposition of the Petitioner (DW 1) was recorded. On 22 November 2005, the deposition of Shri Jaiprakash Shriram Nagalkar (DW 2) and Shri Tryambak Dadarao Deshmukh (DW 3), who were defence witnesses, were recorded.
After the closure of oral evidence, the Petitioner submitted his defence statement.
13 On 20 February 2006, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. On 22 August 2006, the Petitioner was 8 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
served with a show cause notice along with a copy of Inquiry Officer's report as the Disciplinary Authority had accepted the finding, without assigning separate and detailed reasons.
14 The Petitioner by a representation denied the show cause notice charges stated to be false, baseless, perverse and resisted the inquiry report.
15 On 31 October 2006, the competent appointing authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, this Petition. 16 The power of Judicial review to interfere with such a order is quite limited, but there is no total bar. In every matter, whether the action of termination/dismissal of Judicial Officer is taken based upon the inquiry report, that itself cannot be the reason not even to look into the material available on record to support or to oppose the order of dismissal. It is relevant to note, specifically against such order of dismissal that the remedy is only to invoke Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
17 The principle of fair and equitable justice which permits re- 9 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
appreciation and/or re-appraisal of evidence, if the case is made out, just cannot be overlooked. Therefore, as submitted, we have gone through the record, as well as, the rival submissions so made by the parties.
18 For deciding point No.1, it is necessary to note Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India and Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Rules, 1979.
"ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA-
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may-
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(3) Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor."
10 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
"ARTICLE 235 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA-
The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and to grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have
under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him
otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law."
19 The Inquiry Officer after recording the evidence and by giving full opportunity to the Petitioner and after considering the rival submissions made by the parties, proceeded on the following points for determination.
1) Whether initiation of departmental enquiry by the lending authority (High Court, Bombay) against the Government servant is vitiated as per Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979?
2) Whether it is proved that Government servant on 19-7-2004 at about 11 to 11-15 a.m. in VIP room of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon demanded
bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- from Shri Vijay Patil 11 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
supervisor of the said Sansthan for giving favourable inspection report and for issuing certificate of correctness of accounts in favour of the trust?
3) Whether it is proved that Government servant on 26-8-2004 asked Shri Gopal Gite accountant of the
trust to arrange for a hired vehicle to go to omkareshwar and Ujjain and after undertaking journey to above places on 28-8-2004 in a hired Tata Sumo jeep bearing No. Mh-30-L-7426, refused to pay charges of the same amounting to Rs.4675/- saying
driver Shri Gajanan Shinde to recover the said charges from Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan?
20 Admittedly, the Petitioner's post was under the control and superintendence of the High Court being a Judicial Officer at the relevant time. He worked as Assistant Charity Commissioner at Buldhana from 15 May 2004 to 15 December 2004. He was suspended on 18 December 2004. The charge-sheet was served on 4 February 2005 when he was repatriated to his parent cadre. 21 The High Court has a control over the lower judiciary including the office of the Charity Commissioner so also their conduct and discipline aspects. Therefore, to initiate the disciplinary proceedings by the High Court against the Charity Commissioner and/or Assistant Charity Commissioner, there is no bar.
12 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
22 The Petitioner, at the relevant time when the action was initiated against him, was Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Akola, we see, therefore, no reason in view of above with regard to point No.1, to interfere with.
23 For the next two points, it is necessary to consider the undisputed position on record that anonymous complaint dated 7 September 2004, was not supported by any affidavit or oath, but caused to initiate the departmental proceedings in question. 24 It is necessary to note the following observations of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Chand Jain vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and anr.1 :
"14 Under the Constitution the High Court has control over the subordinate judiciary. While exercising that control it is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers. An honest strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries in the mofussil courts. If complaints are entertained on trifling matters relating to judicial orders which may have been upheld by the High Court on the judicial side no judicial officer would feel protected and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent manner. An independent and honest judiciary is a sine qua non for rule of law. If judicial officers are under constant threat of complaint and enquiry on trifling matters and if High Court encourages anonymous complaints to hold the field 1 (1988) 3 SCC 370
13 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
the subordinate judiciary will not be able to administer justice in an independent and honest manner. It is therefore imperative that the High Court should also take steps to protect its honest officers by ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by the unscrupulous lawyers and litigants."
Ishwar Chand Jain (supra) is followed in Ramesh Chander Singh vs. High Court of Allahabad and anr.2.
25 Admittedly, the statement of these two witnesses were recorded based on no written complaints from them. Admittedly, the District Judge unable to secure the presence of five devotees/complainants who had sent the pseudonymous complaint. It was alleged that the Petitioner had started a drive for inspection of the Charitable Trusts which were capable of collecting huge amount. The complaint was also that he had inspected two other Trusts apart from the Trust in question and collected lacs of rupees; no Trustees were coming forward to lodge complaint against him because of fear. It was also alleged that he used to direct the Trustees to hire vehicles for his visits. Based upon such complaint, it was directed by the High Court to submit a report after making an inquiry. The statements were recorded accordingly by the District Judge, Akola, but unable to 2 (2007) 4 SCC 247
14 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
secure the presence of the main complaints. This, according to us, goes to the root of the matter. Admittedly, before pseudonymous complaint dated 7 September 2004, there was no complaint lodged by any one with regard to the charged incidents of the Trust. Admittedly, the charges were framed against the Petitioner referring to the incidents only of the Trust and not of any other Trust or incidence. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the material revolving around the incidents and the supporting evidence. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence of alleged demand except the delayed statements and the evidence of Mr. Vijay Patil and the Trustees.
26 For the second point, it is necessary to reconsider the evidence of Mr. Vijay Patil, who claimed to be, at the relevant time, the supervisor of the Trust. He admitted that more than 20 cases were pending in the Court relating to the employees of the Sansthan (the Trust). He claimed to be the supervisor of the Trust work and the functioning of the various projects. He admitted that Mr. Nagalkar, made statement against him about collecting huge amount and misappropriation of funds, prior to 19 July 2004. He used to visit the office of ACC, Buldhana even prior to 19 July 2004 for various reasons concerning change reports. He had given instructions to every 15 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
Department of the Sansthan to keep records ready for inspection as directed by the Board of Trustees, pursuance to the direction, for conducting the enquiry about the irregularities of the Sansthan. He admitted that they welcomed ACC, the Petitioner and his staff members when they visited for inspection with due intimation for the informed period. He also admitted that there was notice that all the Trustees should remain present in the Trust Office on 19 July 2004. All 12 Trustees were present in the Trust Office accordingly. He admitted in the cross-examination that he had made application in the month of April 2003 for getting copies of the documents in Enquiry Case No.24/2000 and 19/2000 (Exh. 22). Though applied for the certified copy as referred above he had shown the ignorance to the direction given by Law and Judiciary Department to the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai to hold enquiry into the irregularities of the Trust. He admitted that T.D. Deshmukh, who was serving as the Superintendent in the office of ACC, Akola was member of the inspecting party for 11 to 12 hours on 19 July 2004. The inspecting party left the Trust Office in the evening of the same day. He further stated that after taking darshan of Sant Gajanan Maharaj, the Petitioner was received in the same VIP Hall by the Trustees. 16 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
27 Mr. Vijay Patil stated that on 19 July 2004 when he and the Petitioner were present in the VIP Guest room after the inspecting party arrived at Shegaon and after having taken tea, the Petitioner demanded from him Rs.1 lac for giving a favourable report. This statement is not supported or corroborated by any other independent witnesses specially of such private meeting. He stated to have replied immediately that the accounts of the Trust were maintained properly. There was no misappropriation of the funds of the Trust, as the entire work of the Trust was transparent and, therefore, there was no need to pay Rs. 1 lac. He admitted in his chief that there might be some lapse of dead stock registers. He stated that after above reply the Petitioner gave direction in anger to call all the Trustees. He therefore apprised Shri Shivshankar Bhaurao Patil about the demand for the favourable report. He further stated that he had called all the Trustees in VIP room as per the direction. He admitted that the inspection of the Trust was over on 23 July 2004 but the report of the same was received by them after two and half months. He admitted that no written complaint in respect of the demand of bribe was made to any Authority. He came to know in the month of September 2004 that enquiry was started against the Petitioner pertaining to the incident dated 19 July 2004. The anonymous complaint was the 17 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
basis of holding inquiry against the Petitioner and not the specific incidents of the Trust, as there was no complaint in writing by the Trust. He admitted that till that date, they had not received the report of inspection by ACC, Buldhana. Admittedly, therefore, the enquiry report was not received by the Trust when the enquiry was commenced. The alleged signatories never supported the anonymous complaint, but still these two statements were recorded. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner, as recorded by the Enquiry Officer, had orally communicated about its records position openly in front of all the Trustees. There was no complaint even filed by any of the Trustees in writing and/or orally to any Authorities. He was fully aware of the pendency of various litigations between the Trust and its employees and also constant and continuing agitation of the employees against the Trust's mis-management. The agitation was also made by their employees to appoint an Administrator on the Trust. However, though Mr. Vijay Patil avoided to answer all these questions, but the facts about the enquiries and the litigations were the part of record. He could not give proper answer about it except showing ignorance.
28 The second witness of the Department was Mr. Shivshankar 18 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
Sukhdeo Patil, a Manager of the Trust. He admitted that due notice was received by him with regard to the inspection of the Trust and accordingly the team visited on 19 July 2004. He tried to support the statement of Mr. Vijay Patil about the demand of Rs. 1 lac and his reply as recorded in the evidence of Mr. Vijay Patil. This witness stated that as ordered and invited, he alone went to see the Petitioner. He admitted to have shown the record of 5 years of the Trust. He stated that all the Trustees entered the VIP room and after introduction, left the room and the inspection commenced thereafter. He further stated that the inspection was concluded on 23 July 2004. All the Trustees were present in the office. There is no reason stated why the complaint was not lodged. He further stated that there were serious allegations against the Trust and therefore the Petitioner directed him to see in his office at Buldhana. This witness stated that if there were any serious allegations, then it would have been disclosed in the presence of all the Trustees. There was no memo- reading on 23 July 2004. The Enquiry Officer's finding is otherwise. They received inspection report after 3 to 4 months of the inspection. This witness denied the receipt of notice from the office of ACC with regard to the inspection of the Trust's Branch at Omkareshwar. The record shows otherwise.
19 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that all the change reports submitted show him as Vyavasthapak (Manager). He was never designated as Chief Managing Trustee. The functioning of the Trust as admitted to be carried out under the supervision and control of the President. He further admitted that there were 12 Trustees who jointly take decisions and pass Resolutions. The income for the year 2003-04 of the Trust was about Rs. 20 to 22 crores. They used to give contribution to the Government. Immediately after inspection they gave about Rs.14 lacs to the Government. He admitted that they had received show cause notice from the ACC, Buldhana prior to the inspection in question. The said show cause notice was replied by them. He denied the allegations that Mr. Vijay Patil used to collect parking charges privately but he also denied about any enquiry to that effect. Whereas Mr. Vijay Patil himself admitted that the statement, based upon the complaint against him, was recorded. He admitted that some of the employees have filed cases in the Labour Court against the present Trustees. He was unable to remember the number of cases pending in the Labour Court, Industrial Court, High Court and the Supreme Court. He admitted that employees Union is in existence. He admitted that number of complaints against the Trust and the related cases filed in various 20 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
courts and before various Authorities 2 to 3 years prior to commencement of the inspection. In cross-examination, he admitted that the office of ACC, Buldhana apprised them about the allegations of the employees who had threatened to go on strike with effect from 15 August 2004 if their demands were not acceded to by the Government. He also admitted that Judges of various High Courts visit the temple for having darshan of Sant Gajanan Maharaj and they well-come them regularly.
29 This witness though denied initially, ultimately conceded to the fact about the various litigations and the agitation of the employees whereby the insistence was to appoint Administrator on the Trust. This witness has recorded that on 30 September 2004 the District Judge recorded the statements, at District Court premises, as summons were received by him from the Court. He expressed ignorance about the statement already recorded of Mr. Vijay Patil. He expressed that he did not remember who had come to call Mr. Vijay Patil. There was no such statement made by Mr. Vijay Patil that Petitioner/Government servant had called him on 19 July 2004. He admitted that information given by Mr. Vijay Patil about the incident of 19 July 2004 was not disclosed to all other Trustees regarding the 21 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
alleged demand. He also admitted that he made no complaint with any Authority except the statement on 30 September 2004. He expressed that he kept quiet for two and half months for lodging the complaint, because the Petitioner was the Judge. There was no complaint lodged by them at any point of time. He expressed that since he had not received inspection report even after lapse of two and half months, the suspicion was increased. He denied the suggestion that as the apprehension was that the Petitioner might give adverse report against the Trust and the Government would appoint Administrator and, therefore, they planned to stigmatize him by making allegations of demand of bribe. He admitted that they received inspection report on 8 October 2004 saying that there was no adverse report and accordingly everything was clear. Therefore, on 30 September 2004 when the statement was recorded, the inspection report dated 8 October 2004 was not with them. He admitted that nearabout 1,00,000 devotees visited on 27 March 2004 on account of arrival of Palkhi of Sant Gajanan Maharaj from Pandharpur and all the Trustees were engaged in the service of devotees on that day. He denied the suggestion that as the statement was recorded on 3 September 2004, before receipt of inspection report on 8 October 2004, he sticked to the statement already recorded on 30 September 22 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
2004 by the District Judge. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses, for the demand charge, was unreliable, false and intended only to create pressure on the Petitioner.
30 It is clear from the above evidence that there is no material and/or evidence to connect that any demand was made by the Petitioner on 19 July 2004, except the bare statement of Vijay Patil, who was not even employee of the Trust and who had no authority even to spend more than Rs.400/- without sanction. There was no reason given and/or brought on record, why and who permitted and/or authorised Vijay Patil to welcome the Petitioner and his team of 5 officers of ACC, specifically when all the Trustees were also present in the office of Sansthan. He admitted that there were 25 supervisors who were working in the Trust. It is clear that said Vijay Patil in a statement recorded by the District Judge never stated that he informed about the demand to Shri Shivshankar Patil. The statement of demand was made by him for the first time before the Enquiry Officer that he had informed the said fact to Shri Shivshankar Patil. It is quite unnatural to accept the statement and the evidence of Vijay Patil who stated that he himself refused to make any payment as demanded inspite of the fact that all the 12 Trustees were present in 23 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
the office. It is also not clear from the above evidence what happened to other officers, who were also part of the inspection party and were also welcomed on the same day and same time in the Trust office. The Department has not examined any other witness and/or officers/staff who went for the inspection along with the Petitioner. The statement of Shivshankar Patil was that inspite of alleged information about demand, communicated to him by Mr. Vijay Patil, he never informed this thing to other Trustees nor made any complaint to any officers. Therefore, on the bare reading of evidence of these two witnesses, it is difficult to accept the case and the finding given by the Enquiry Officer that the Department is able to prove that the Petitioner demanded Rs.1 lac in view of the vague and afterthought delayed charges, without any prior written complaint by them.
31 The pseudonymous complaints alleged to have been made by five devotees of the Trust, were taken note of though it is observed in many cases that in absence of complaint and/or affidavit in support of the same, no enquiry should be commenced, as it affects the rights and the reputation of the judicial officer or Government servant like the petitioner. Admittedly, the District Judge unable to procure the 24 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
presence of these five complainants. Therefore, though discreet enquiry was ordered based upon the complaint, the initiation of proceedings based upon the specific charges about the Trust was unwarranted, specifically in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.C. Sood vs. High Court of Rajasthan, (1998) 5 SCC 493. The issue is not whether there was a specific regulation to have supporting affidavit before initiating any enquiry on the basis of such pseudonymous complaint, but whether further enquiry should have been proceeded further, and above all the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from the service. In the present case, admittedly, there was no such affidavit and the District Judge, at the relevant time, even unable to procure their presence and, therefore, in our view, ought to have dismissed and/or dropped the proceedings then and then only.
32 It is recorded that the report was received after recording of the statement by the District Judge on 8 October 2004. Therefore, even before report was submitted, it appears that the Trust people prejudged the issue and as apprehended in view of the various complaints lodged and the pendency of litigations in various courts and basically agitation initiated by the employees of the Sansthan for 25 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
appointment of Administrator on the Trust. All those pending proceedings also caused the Charity Commissioner to order for the inspection of the Trust record. Therefore, even after so many days, the concocted statements were recorded against the petitioner and not against anyone else. The submission has the force that this was all to put the pressure and to avoid further complications in the matter before even submission of the report. The enquiry was initiated and that resulted into the dismissal of the Petitioner though the report was in favour of the Trust. Strikingly, there is nothing on record to show why the statement of Vijay Patil and Shivshankar Patil was recorded in absence of any complaint in writing from their side. 33 The Enquiry Officer, in our view, has just failed to take into consideration the basic fact of missing evidence and/or supporting affidavit of the pseudonymous complainants and in the absence of any complaint by these two witnesses in writing. Admittedly, the inspection was over on 23 July 2004 and the statements of these two witnesses were recorded on 23 September 2004 and 30 September 2004 respectively where for the first time they disclosed about the demands made by the Petitioner specifically when at that time the report was not submitted by the petitioner. Admittedly, notice of 26 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
agitation was given on 13 July 2004 and the inspection was conducted on 19 July 2004. The Enquiry Officer has noted that on 23 July 2004 the inspection note was read over by the Petitioner and expressed that nothing serious was found and therefore there was no question for the Trustees for any apprehension, but as recorded above, Shivshankar Patil admitted that there was suspicion in their mind as report was not received by them till the date of their statements. This shows and supports the case of the Petitioner that they took these steps by making such wild allegations against the Petitioner to avoid any drastic action as they apprehended, and so that the challenge can be made if report goes against the Trust. There is no justification to overlook the fact that Shivshankar Patil though alleged to have informed by Vijay Patil, about the demand, not informed to all other Trustees at the relevant time and/or even thereafter. It is also not clear why Vijay used to inform everything only to these Trustee who, as noted supported for his alleged pending cases. No other Trustees were examined. The inspection of 19 July 2004 by the Petitioner along with other officers/staff could have prevented even on the same day itself, had the allegations were true and correct. Such allegations, after such long time, pending the results of the inspection, in our view, itself shows that the purpose was to pressurise the judicial officer from 27 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
passing any adverse order. The intention was to create a ground in advance to challenge the report if it goes against the party. 34 The Enquiry Officer is wrong by observing that the witnesses had no grudge against the Petitioner in view of the above facts itself. There was no material placed on record on what basis Vijay Patil and Shivshankar Patil were called to record their statements specifically when there is a material on record to show that they were informed by one Advocate from Akola for the statements. The copies of the summons or service report are not part of the record. Admittedly, the inspection was ordered that itself is sufficient to hold that the Trust and/or Trustees had definitely grudge against the Petitioner who proceeded to inspect the record of the Trust by giving due and proper notice and in fact conducted the inspection as scheduled. Ultimately the favourable report was given by the petitioner, but by that time the false allegations were made to put all sorts of pressure as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner which need to be accepted. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner has conducted the inspection on 19 July 2004 till evening and inspecting party carried on the inspection thereafter also. The Petitioner had been to Sansthan only on 23 July 2004. There is nothing pointed out and recorded that 28 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
why these two witnesses even during this period not informed to the officers and/or staff, who went along with the Petitioner about the incident apart from the complaint to any authority. We are inclined to accept the submission that the allegations as made was deliberate and afterthought with a view to protect the Trust in the belief that the report might go against them specifically in view of th admission of Shivshankar Patil with regard to the complaint dated 21 June 2004, 2 July 2004, 16 July 2004 and the employees threat notice dated 30 July 2004. We are inclined to accept the submission of the Petitioner that the enquiry report was to be submitted after inspection of the record by the inspection team along with the Petitioner. They had mainly to supervise the work of the inspection. Therefore to believe that the Petitioner demanded such amount for the favourable report is also unbelievable.
35 The reason for delay in submitting the report was explained by the Enquiry Officer as he was incharge of other post also. The other typists were also not available. Mr. Nagalkar was holding additional charge and therefore inspection report was delayed. He could not type and prepare it in time. The Enquiry Officer failed to take note of the evidence of Mr. Nagalkar that he was member of the inspection 29 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
team and prepared the inspection report and as he was present with the Petitioner at the time of inspection throughout and so was Shri Deshmukh who was the Superintendent in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, though it is noted that the statements which recorded by the District Judge were not on affidavit and/or on oath. 36 Importantly, the copy of pseudonymous complaint dated 7 September 2004 and other connected documents relied upon were not provided to the Petitioner. Therefore, the enquiry and the consequential penalty just cannot be the foundation as it is against the principle of natural justice and as it affects the valuable rights of the Petitioner to defend himself against the allegations if relied upon and was the reason to initiate the proceedings and/or recording of statements of these two witnesses as is done in the present case. Such complaint, if not provided before initiating any enquiry and even during the course of the proceedings and as no opportunity was given at the relevant time to the Petitioner to defend such contents/allegations made in the complaint, therefore, also the impugned order needs to be interfered with in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
30 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
37 Then remains the version of two witnesses- Vijay Patil and Shivshankar Patil. As noted, the statements so recorded was without any oath and/or on an affidavit again. The impugned action therefore taken based upon these two witnesses, in view of the above reasoning itself, supports the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the case of Department is based upon self- contradictory and unreliable evidence and in the whole background it appears to be concocted and false case to put every sort of pressure on the judicial officer at the relevant time.
38 This facet is also further enlarged by making second charge/third point against the Petitioner about the non-payment of taxi charges, and directed one Mr. Gite to get the money from the Trust.
39 Mr. Gopal Shamrao Gite was the third witness of the Department who was serving as a clerk in the Trust and was incharge to make necessary arrangement for VIPs who visit the Sansthan. In his evidenced, there was no reference made with regard to the incident of 19 July 2004. He stated that on telephone he communicated to the Petitioner that vehicle of the Trust was not available. The Petitioner, 31 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
therefore, asked Mr. Gopal to arrange for a hired vehicle from Shegaon. The vehicle was hired of Mr. Ajinkya Thakare and it was accordingly sent at Akola on 28 August 2004. One Gajanan Shinde was the driver of the vehicle. He stated that when Mr. Shinde demanded the hire charges of approximately Rs.4600/-, it was told him to get the charges of vehicle from the Petitioner. Mr. Shinde thereafter left the office. This witness has also given statement to the District Judge, Akola. He stated that the Sansthan did not provide vehicle to any VVIP. He admitted that he had not seen the document of the vehicle provided by Mr. Thakare. He was unable to assign the reason why he could not state before the Enquiry Officer that vehicle was hired at the rate of Rs.4.50 and Mr. Gajanan Shinde had demanded Rs.4600/- towards hire charges. These facts were missing in earlier statement made before the District Judge. He stated that he went alone to Akola on 30 September 2004 as called in the office of District Court. He also admitted that he never informed Chief Managing Trustee that driver Shinde demanded Rs.4600/- towards hiring charges. Therefore on this vague and unclear evidence, it is difficult to impose the major penalty specially when he had no knowledge about the actual payment made to the owner. There was no complaint made by the owner about the non-payment. 32 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
40 Witness no.4 from the Department was Mr.Gajanan Shinde, who was the driver of the vehicle sent by one Mr. Thakare of Shegaon. He admitted that he took the Petitioner on 28 August 2004 to Omkareshwar from Akola along with friends. The friends boarded in the vehicle at Malkapur. He further stated that the vehicle was taken on next day to Ujjain on 29 August 2004 as they stayed at Omkareshwar on that day. They returned Omkareshwar at about 5 pm and started return journey and reached Akola on 30 August 2004. He stated that the Petitioner asked him to collect the vehicle charges of Rs.6700/- from the Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan. As recorded Mr. Gite asked him to collect the vehicle from the Petitioner only. He further stated that till date of recording of the evidence the amount was not paid to him. There was no question to make payment to him without receipt. In the cross-examination he was not in a position to tell whether the vehicle in question had taxi permit. He stated that he carried in the vehicle the petitioner, his wife and one Balasaheb Deshmukh from Akola to Malkapur. He also admitted to have taken all of them to Omkareshwar. He admitted that his Master asked him to give account of vehicle to Mr. Gite. He admitted that no notice of demand or complaint was made for non-payment of charges of the 33 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
vehicle. He admitted that he had been to Akola along with Mr. Gite. He received no notice or summons to attend the office of District Judge. He also admitted that there was discussion with Mr. Gite about the purpose of their visit to Akola. He was unable to explain the missing statement with regard to the fact that an amount of Rs.6700/- was demanded by him from the Petitioner and he refused to give any receipt for the same. This witness's statement and evidence based upon half hearted and vague allegations cannot be the basis for any kind of major penalty. These witnesses, no where refer or deal with the charge of demand.
41 Admittedly, by giving pre-notice/intimation the Petitioner along with others went to Omkareshwar for the inspection. The Petitioner's evidence shows that he made payment of Rs.3,000/- through Mr. T. D. Deshumukh towards hire charges for vehicle and Rs.1500/- was initially paid towards fuel charges to him. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh in his evidence admitted to be a member of inspecting party and who accompanied for inspection at Omkareshwar. The inspection was carried out as fixed. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh (witness no.3/Government servant) stated to have paid Rs.1500/- to the driver of the vehicle towards the fuel charges. That amount was paid by the petitioner for 34 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
paying fuel charges. The driver declined to issue receipt saying that the vehicle was not having taxi permit so far as the hire charges is concerned. Therefore, the said amount could not be paid to him. The amount was already paid to Mr. Thakare, the owner of the vehicle in the second week of September 2004. He was also unable to issue receipt. But fact remains that the payment was made to the owner of the owner. Therefore, the amount so claimed was paid by the petitioner through T.D. Deshmukh. The fact that the taxi was booked not directly by the Petitioner and Mr. Gite had no concern with the said payment and there was confusion with regard to the receipt of the amount though paid, Charge No.2, in our view, also not proved by the Department that the Petitioner directed the driver to collect the charges from Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan. We have also noted the discrepancies in the statement from one person to another, with regard to the exact amount of the taxi charges.
42 It appears that as the First charge was not based upon any prior written complaint by Vijay Patil and/or the Trustees, the second incident, pending the report was added and accordingly the enquiry was initiated and concluded against the Petitioner. There was no written complaint and/or any complaint from Mr. Thakare, the owner 35 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
of the vehicle with regard to the payment of hire charges. As recorded, the payments were made to the owner of the vehicle though without receipt. It is quite natural to make the payment to the owner than the driver who was unable to produce and/or refused to give any receipt. There is nothing on record to connect that the petitioner told and/or directed the driver to collect money from Mr. Gite. The learned Enquiry Officer relied wrongly on the evidence of Mr. Gite and Mr. Shinde by overlooking the missing connecting evidence and the fact that the amounts were duly paid to the owner of the vehicle through Mr. Deshmukh. Therefore, once it is clear from the record that the amount was paid through Mr. Trimbak Deshmukh initially Rs. 1500/- to the driver for fuel and later on Rs.3000/- directly to the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the whole charge that the amount was directed to be collected from Mr. Gite, the Department has failed to prove. The learned Enquiry Officer observed that the Petitioner was inconsistent in his defence regarding the payment of hiring charges of the Tata Sumo vehicle, but failed to note that actually the amount was paid and there was no complaint from the owner of the vehicle at any point of time. Neither there is a denial to the fact that the amount of Rs.1500/- was paid to the driver towards fuel charges during the journey. Though charge was referring to the direction to ask payment 36 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
from Mr. Gite, the reasoning moved on even to what happened in Omkareshwar on 27 August 2004 and/or next date. Any how it is clear from the evidence of Mr. Gite as well as Mr. Gajanan Shinde, except their own statements there was nothing on record to suggest that such directions were actually issued by the petitioner, basically in view of the fact that there was substantial material to show that the Petitioner never engaged the vehicle for Omkareshwar directly, and all the payments were made through Mr. T.D. Deshumukh. It means that there was no question of making direct payment by the Petitioner towards the fuel, as well as, the hiring charges. The Enquiry Officer has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of the Petitioner, as well as, of Mr. T.D. Deshmukh. The Enquiry Officer just cannot rely upon the evidence of the Department by overlooking the evidence of the Petitioner in such fashion. The Department having framed charges need to support the same specifically when there was no complaint filed by the jeep owner, as well as, the driver for non-payment of the hiring charges at any point of time. It is quite surprised how this charge was framed without any complaint from the owner of the vehicle. It appears that again those charges were framed on the basis of statement of Mr. Gite who was the accountant of the Trust. This whole approach itself shows that one way or the other, the Trust 37 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
and/or their officers/staff, just went to put all sorts of pressure on the Petitioner/judicial officer only because the inspection report was pending. Merely, because Mr. Balu Thakare in whose presence the amount of Rs.3000/- was paid was not examined by the Petitioner that itself cannot be the circumstance to hold that no payment was made towards hiring charges to the driver or the owner of the vehicle specifically when there was no such complaint by both of them. In our view, because there was delay in submitting the report and the Petitioner did not claim hire charges that itself cannot be the reason to hold that he failed to make the payment of the vehicle which they hired for the inspection at Omkareshwar, basically in the background that the Petitioner went to Omkareshwar, apart from one week prior notice, with his wife and friends also.
43 There is nothing on record to show that whether any communication received by Mr. Gopal Gite with regard to the hiring of vehicle. The learned Enquiry Officer is wrong in observing that there was no discrepancy in the evidence of witness with regard to the vehicle charges, specifically when the driver demanded hire charges of Rs.6700/-, whereas the amount should be Rs.4675/- as per the hiring charges fixed at Rs.4.50/- of 1039 kms. The learned Enquiry Officer 38 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
has wrongly put the burden on the Petitioner to show that the hiring charges were paid by him. We are of the view that the Enquiry Officer is wrong in giving finding that Tata Sumo vehicle was hired by Mr. Gite at the instance of the Petitioner and the Petitioner has refused to pay hiring charges of vehicle amounting to Rs.4675/- specifically when there is no material on record to show that the charges remained unpaid and/or even paid by the Sansthan/Trust as the vehicle was alleged to have been hired by Mr. Gite who was accountant of the Trust, for the inspection of the Omkareshwar Branch. The foundation of the charge therefore itself is false and baseless. This cannot be the reason to dismiss the judicial officer on such vague allegations and based upon the conjunctures and surmises without any direct evidence.
44 It is relevant to note "the principle of preponderance of probability" as observed in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others,3 in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 is as under : 21 Yet again in M.V . Bijlani v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 this Court held : (SCC p. 95, para 25)
3 (2009) 2 SCC 570
39 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
25 ... Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with."
22 Yet again in Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank, (1007) 1 SCC 566, this Court followed Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., stating : (Jasbir Singh case, SCC p. 570, para 12)
"12 In a case of this nature, therefore, the High Court should have applied its mind to the fact of the matter with reference to the materials brought on records. It failed to do so."
23 Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the 40 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof."
45 Therefore, because in such matters, above principle needs to be taken note of by the judicial officer as it is not possible to collect direct material or evidence, still in our view, that does not mean that any judicial officer can be punished on the basis of such vague allegations/unsupported indirect evidence specifically when that results into dismissal of the judicial officer from service. It is a case of no direct or even indirect evidence on record to pass such order. 46 No reference is made in the charges with regard to the complainant. The charges were framed based upon the evidence of witnesses whose statements were recorded behind the back of the Petitioner without there specific knowledge and/or intimation. The Enquiry Officer therefore though referred to those defence raised unable to justify the reasoning to award the order of dismissal. The leaned Enquiry Officer distinguished the Supreme Court judgment by 41 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
saying the fact were different and distinguishable, but failed to take note of the important aspect of the principles of natural justice and due and fair trial and the settled practice that as the pseudonymous complaints just cannot be the basis, without supporting material and affidavit, to dismiss the Government servant/judicial officer in such fashion. There are no reasoning given except by distinguishing the Supreme Court judgment on facts.
47 The Enquiry Officer further failed to see and not even recorded the pendency of litigations and agitation of the employees of the Sansthan/Trust which compelled the Charity Commissioner to pass the order to have an inspection of the Trust record. The Petitioner has stated in his evidence though date was fixed for inspection of the record on 19 July 2004, there were directions issued in favour of the Trust to destroy the old record as early as possible. Therefore one way or the other, as contented, the intention was to delay the inspection to avoid further serious consequences as apprehended. Therefore, to say there was no apprehension and/or grudge of any kind is also unacceptable and in fact there is material to show the same. 48 It is also to be noted that as recorded above, there were 42 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
contradictory instructions sent/issued from the office of Charity Commissioner. At one stroke, it was ordered to hold enquiry and inspection of the Trust and on the other hand, there were instructions to the Trust to destroy the record. This facet though is the part of evidence of the Petitioner and which remained uncontroverted not at all considered by the Enquiry Officer apart from the pendency of Court cases and agitation of the employees.
49 One cannot overlook the fact that judicial institution is also of human beings. The senior or junior officer's bias or prejudices, indifference attitude and unhealthy competition at every stage of service career of any judicial officer and/or Government officers, are well known phenomenon so also the office politics. Some one project someone and someone protect someone. One cannot overlook the practical part of any service career. Therefore, merely because the constant vigilance over subordinate judiciary and the repeated enquiry and scrutiny of service record, to weed out corrupt officer is essential, but that in no way is to be read to mean that even on the basis of doubts and/or suspicion and on the basis of such pseudonymous complaint supported by no affidavit, such major penalty be imposed. 43 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
50 It is settled that the suspicion and proof of corruption and/or bribery charges are two different and distinguishable concept. Judicial officer and/or any Government officer just cannot be punished basically on the charge of bribery and/or corruption unless there is concrete, clear evidence and based upon definite allegations and material. It is true that in every matter, there is no possibility of getting concrete and clear proof, but still before imposing the major penalty of dismissal, a full opportunity need to be given to the delinquent by following the basic principle of natural justice, fair play and equality at every stage. On the basis of conjectures and surmises, such drastic action may not be initiated.
51 The necessary evidence and the case of the Petitioner and also of the supporting witnesses have completely overlooked and the evidence of witnesses of the Department have been taken note of and expressed opinion on probabilities and/or presumption and assumption, against the Petitioner.
52 In the present case, the view so taken by the Enquiry Officer is against the principle of natural justice, fair play and as the view so taken barely on the basis of false, baseless and motivated allegations 44 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
of bribery and/or corruption, was not possible and/or reasonable view, specially on the basis of the material on the record as recorded above.
53 The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the Enquiry Officer's finding and/or opinion. It may take its own view and/or opinion and may pass such appropriate order, supporting and/or reversing the finding or opinion. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the opinion of Enquiry Officer and based upon the same without assigning any other or special reason passed the dismissal order. Therefore, if the Enquiry Officer's reasons and reasoning found to be unjust, incorrect, contrary to the record and based upon no material on record and by overlooking the evidence and the case of the delinquent and if it is against the principle of natural justice, the High Court, under Article 226, has power to revoke and/or to interfere with the orders. Therefore, if Enquiry Officer's finding goes and set aside, consequently the Disciplinary Authority's order also need to be set aside.
54 The finding given by the Enquiry Officer in our opinion, is perverse and contrary to record. The learned Enquiry Officer just 45 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
failed to consider the basic prinicple laid down in R.C. Sood and Ishwar Chand (supra) which is even otherwise settled that anonymous complaint should not be the basis for imposing major penalty of dismissal of service, specifically on corruption or bribery charges. The principle of preponderance of probabilities just cannot be utilised to impose major punishment on the basis of probability and/or suspicion. The requirement is corruption and/or bribery charges need to be specific, definite and detailed and so also the proof. To create doubt or suspicion on the basis of such pseudonymous complaint and then impose penalty on the basis of such other material other than the allegations made in such pseudonymous complaint, itself shows the purpose and object of creating all sorts of pressure and to halt the proceeding or interfere with the judicial officer's function. 55 Every judge is entitled to express his views in accordance with law and the record. The exercise of judicial discretion which resulted into wrong or incorrect order, if any, as alleged by one party, which is subject to Appeal or Revision and if reversed and/or set aside, cannot be the basis to raise doubt and/or suspicion against such judicial officer so also the pseudonymous complaint cannot be therefore the basis, without supporting proof and the material to impose major 46 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
penalty basically when there were no supporting affidavit and the witnesses could be procured and/or brought on record, at any stage of recording of the statement or at any other stage. The possibility of settling internal grudges, cannot be overlooked as contended in the present case. There is sufficient material to support the same. The Enquiry Officer cannot overlook all these aspects. 56 We have to consider carefully and cautiously such allegations enabling the judicial officer and/or Government servant to perform their duties freely and fairly and without bias, uninfluenced by any internal and external politics and prejudices. We have to respect and support the purpose and object of judicial independence. 57 The High Court's control over the lower judiciary has three basic elements, administrative, judicial and disciplinary. We are not of the view that the Disciplinary Committee should sit as Appellate or revisional forum over the enquiry officer's opinion and/or decision, but the judicial review, as settled, is possible if there is incorrect appreciation of fact or overlooked the important evidence and defective material taken into consideration.
58 In totality of the matter, the disciplinary proceedings as initiated was based upon the anonymous complaint not supported by any evidence. Later on restricted to the two incidents of the Trust that was also based upon no prior written communication. The statements were recorded based upon unwritten complaint by those material witnesses. No other Trustees were examined and or called for any statement at any point of time. No evidence and witnesses were recorded of any other Trust on which the Petitioner was incharge. No official summons issued to call and to record the statement of the District Judge and at least not placed any affidavit and/or evidence of Departmental witnesses, when the statement was recorded. No copy of Summons or service report issued by the District Court Office placed on record. No other team members were examined to support the charges of demand and/or no payment of taxi charges, though it were available. It shows that the whole object was to single out and bring in by all by means the Petitioner for undisclosed reasons. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities used to punish and/or to impose such major penalty on the basis of false and fabricated evidence and inquiry report which was admittedly initiated on the foundation of general and vague anonymous complaint, without verifying the genuineness and bonafide of all the complainants and
supporting witnesses, therefore, the existing material were not sufficient to impose such major penalty.
59 Therefore, the impugned orders need to be quashed and set aside and so also all consequential action. The Petitioner is therefore, entitled to all the consequential benefits including reinstatement, but excluding arrears of salary. There was no interim order in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not in service during the pendency of this Petition as there was no interim order in his favour. Therefore, the principle of "no work no salary" needs to be followed. 60 Resultantly, we allow the Petition to the following extent. ORDER
a) The impugned order of dismissal of the Petitioner dated 31 October 2006 (Annexure-XIII ) is quashed
and set aside. The Petitioner be reinstated from the date of this order.
b) The Petitioner is entitled for all the consequential 49 wp1930-24-1-12.sxw
dgm
benefits, except the arrears of salary/back wages. c) There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment