Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in Postal Misconduct Case: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 21 November 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a disciplinary inquiry be overturned due to a delay in proceedings and the alleged non-supply of documents? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a postal assistant accused of misconduct. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent, Udai Bhan Singh, and whether the principles of natural justice were violated. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The respondent, Udai Bhan Singh, was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the Head Post Office at Allahabad on 13 December 1978. On 31 August 1988, a charge-sheet was issued to him concerning his conduct between 15 July 1985 and 10 February 1986, while he was working as a Miscellaneous P.A. at the Allahabad Head Office. The charges against him involved irregularities in the payment of commissions under the National Savings Certificate Scheme to fake agents. Specifically, it was alleged that he did not properly verify commission bills, failed to make entries in the ledger, and facilitated fraudulent payments of approximately Rs. 6,65,693.60 to 79 fake agents. Additionally, he was accused of preparing duplicate money receipts and not submitting schedules of commission payments to the audit office, violating Rule 543(10)(b) of the P&T Manual Vol. VI Part II.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay. However, on appeal, the appellate authority enhanced the punishment to dismissal from service. The Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) set aside both the original order and the appellate order, remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority for a fresh decision after issuing a show cause notice to the respondent. Following the Tribunal’s order, the disciplinary authority again concluded that the charges warranted dismissal. The Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s application, which led to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad interfering with the disciplinary authority’s order. The High Court cited a violation of natural justice due to the non-supply of documents and delay in the proceedings, ordering reinstatement with full back wages. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The charges against the respondent were framed under the provisions of Rule 543(10)(b) of the P&T Manual Vol. VI Part II. The specific rule stated that:

“…did not submit prepare schedule of commission paid to authorised agents for sale of NSCs and did not submit the schedule with the voucher and bills to the Audit office though Account branch of Allahabad HO and did not tally the amount of NS commission with those of HO summary and HO cash book in r/o commission paid to the fake authorized NS Agents shown in Article No.1 and put the department into a loss of Rs.6,65,63.60. By his above acts he contravened the provisions of rule 543(10) (b) of P&T Man. Vol.VI Part II.”

The court also considered Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, which deals with the execution of orders of the Tribunal, although it was deemed not relevant to the case.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India)

• The High Court erred in interfering with the disciplinary jurisdiction.
• The issue of non-production of documents was correctly assessed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal.
• The respondent failed to specify which documents were not supplied and how it caused prejudice.
• Receipts were not available for inspection as the respondent was responsible for maintaining them.
• There was no delay in initiating the disciplinary inquiry.
• The delay in issuing a show cause notice after the Tribunal’s first order did not cause prejudice as the respondent was reinstated during the proceedings.
• The Tribunal had remanded the proceedings to the disciplinary authority only for the purpose of providing reasons for differing with the findings of the inquiry officer, not for fresh evidence or inquiry.

Arguments by the Respondent (Udai Bhan Singh)

• The respondent specifically raised the ground of non-production of documents during the disciplinary proceedings.
• The charge against the respondent did not indicate any defalcation of funds or loss caused to the department.
• There was a significant delay of eight years in issuing a show cause notice after the Tribunal’s order in 1992.
• The respondent was handicapped in preparing his defense due to the non-availability of documents, breaching the principles of natural justice.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings?
2. Whether there was a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of documents?
3. Whether the delay in issuing the show cause notice after the Tribunal’s order vitiated the proceedings?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another [1990 (Supp) SCC 738] – The Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved an unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, which was not the case here.
• State of Punjab and Others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570] – This case was cited to clarify the position of law regarding delay in disciplinary proceedings.
• State of A.P. vs. N.Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154] – This case was cited to clarify the position of law regarding delay in disciplinary proceedings.
• Secretary, Forest Department and Others vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury [(2009) 7 SCC 305] – This case was cited to clarify the position of law regarding delay in disciplinary proceedings.
• Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. V.Appala Swamy [(2007) 14 SCC 491] – This case was relied upon to establish the principles for quashing proceedings based on delay, which include condonation of lapses or prejudice to the employee.
• Secy. to Govt., Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivisan [(1996) 3 SCC 157] – This case was cited in the judgment for the principles for quashing proceedings based on delay.
• P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India [(2006) 8 SCC 776] – This case was cited in the judgment for the principles for quashing proceedings based on delay.
• Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey [(1995) 3 SCC 134] – This case was cited in the judgment for the principles for quashing proceedings based on delay.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 543(10)(b) of the P&T Manual Vol. VI Part II – This rule was the basis for the charges of misconduct against the respondent, relating to the proper submission of commission schedules.
• Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 – This section deals with the execution of orders of the Tribunal, but was deemed not relevant to the present case.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and affirming the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the respondent’s original application. The Court upheld the findings and penalty imposed in the disciplinary proceedings. However, the Court directed that no recovery should be made from the respondent for the period he worked and received salary after his reinstatement following the first order of the Tribunal.

Treatment of Submissions by the Court

Treatment of Authorities by the Court

The following authorities were viewed by the Court for its reasoning for resolving the issue:

• State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another [1990 (Supp) SCC 738]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved an unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, which was not the case here.
• State of Punjab and Others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570]: The Court relied on this case to clarify the position of law regarding delay in disciplinary proceedings.
• State of A.P. vs. N.Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154]: The Court relied on this case to clarify the position of law regarding delay in disciplinary proceedings.
• Secretary, Forest Department and Others vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury [(2009) 7 SCC 305]: The Court relied on this case to clarify the position of law regarding delay in disciplinary proceedings.
• Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. V.Appala Swamy [(2007) 14 SCC 491]: The Court relied upon this case to establish the principles for quashing proceedings based on delay, which include condonation of lapses or prejudice to the employee.
• Secy. to Govt., Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivisan [(1996) 3 SCC 157]: The Court cited this case for the principles for quashing proceedings based on delay.
• P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India [(2006) 8 SCC 776]: The Court cited this case for the principles for quashing proceedings based on delay.
• Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey [(1995) 3 SCC 134]: The Court cited this case for the principles for quashing proceedings based on delay.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The High Court’s interference in disciplinary matters without proper assessment of facts and evidence.
• The respondent’s failure to specify which documents were not provided and how it caused prejudice.
• The Tribunal’s finding that the non-availability of a specific document did not impact the charges.
• The fact that the respondent was reinstated after the first Tribunal order, mitigating any prejudice caused by delay.
• The established principles that delay alone does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings unless it leads to condonation of lapses or prejudice to the employee.

The Court emphasized that the misconduct was proven and the penalty was not disproportionate.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis

The court’s decision was influenced by both factual aspects of the case and legal considerations. The factual aspects included the specific charges against the respondent, the course of proceedings, and the findings of the inquiry officer and the Tribunal. The legal considerations included the principles of natural justice, the impact of delay on disciplinary proceedings, and the established precedents regarding interference with disciplinary jurisdiction. The analysis shows that the legal considerations had a slightly higher influence on the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Disciplinary proceedings will not be overturned merely on the ground of delay if the delay has not caused prejudice to the employee or if the employer has not condoned the lapse.
• General allegations of non-supply of documents are insufficient to establish a violation of natural justice. The employee must specify the documents and demonstrate prejudice.
• Courts should be cautious in interfering with disciplinary matters unless there is a clear violation of law or procedure.
• The principles of natural justice require that an employee be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves, but this does not mean that every procedural lapse will lead to the invalidation of the proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that no recovery should be made from the respondent for the period he worked and received salary after his reinstatement following the first order of the Tribunal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a delay in disciplinary proceedings does not automatically invalidate the proceedings unless it has caused prejudice to the employee or the employer has condoned the lapse. This judgment reinforces the established position of law that disciplinary proceedings are not to be lightly interfered with, and that the principles of natural justice must be balanced with the need for efficient administration. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of existing principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Udai Bhan Singh, a postal assistant, emphasizing that delays in disciplinary proceedings do not automatically invalidate them unless prejudice is proven. The court also stressed the importance of specifying which documents were not provided and how this caused prejudice. The judgment underscores the need for a balanced approach to disciplinary actions, ensuring fairness while maintaining administrative efficiency.