Date of the Judgment: 01 June 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 503
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli
Can a departmental inquiry be considered valid if crucial witnesses are not examined? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable accused of misconduct. The court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of examining key witnesses in departmental proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli.
Case Background
The case involves Suresh Kumar Singh, a constable in the CRPF, who was accused of misconduct. The allegations against him were that he had exerted political pressure to cancel his transfer order and had impersonated a Member of Parliament to achieve this. The initial departmental inquiry found him guilty, leading to his removal from service. However, the Appellate Authority found procedural flaws in the inquiry and ordered a fresh inquiry. Despite the fresh inquiry, the key witnesses were not examined.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 11th October 1999 | Departmental proceedings initiated against Suresh Kumar Singh with charges communicated to him. |
| Allegation that the appellant asserted political pressure to cancel his transfer order and impersonated a Member of Parliament. | |
| Suresh Kumar Singh was found guilty and removed from service. | |
| Appellate Authority found that the departmental proceedings were not conducted properly and remitted the same to the original authority for conducting the proceedings denovo. | |
| In the denovo proceedings, Suresh Kumar Singh was again found guilty. | |
| 10.01.2003 | Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal and modified the punishment to 28 days confinement to Quarter Guard with forfeiture of pay and allowances. The intervening period was treated as extraordinary leave. |
| Suresh Kumar Singh challenged the same by way of a revision before the Revisional Authority and the same was dismissed. | |
| Suresh Kumar Singh filed a petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. | |
| 28th January 2010 | The learned Single Judge set aside the penalty and directed that Suresh Kumar Singh be paid all arrears of salary with consequential benefits. |
| 14th March 2011 | The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, upholding the decision of the Single Judge. |
| 01 June 2022 | The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the departmental proceedings resulted in the removal of the respondent from service. The Appellate Authority, however, identified procedural irregularities and ordered a fresh inquiry. Despite this, the key witnesses, including the Additional DIGP, Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, and the STD booth owner, were not examined. The Appellate Authority modified the punishment to 28 days of confinement and forfeiture of pay. This was challenged before the High Court.
Legal Framework
The respondent was charged under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, which pertains to misconduct by members of the force. The case highlights the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in departmental proceedings, particularly the need to examine crucial witnesses to ensure a fair hearing.
Arguments
Arguments by the Union of India:
- The learned counsel for the Union of India argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the departmental proceedings, especially regarding the penalty imposed.
- They relied on the judgment in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Sujata Malhotra, arguing that unless there was a significant flaw in the proceedings, the High Court should not interfere with the penalty.
Arguments by Suresh Kumar Singh:
- The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the High Court’s decision was in accordance with the law, given the serious procedural lapses in the departmental inquiry.
- They emphasized that the failure to examine vital witnesses undermined the fairness of the proceedings.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Union of India | Sub-Submissions by Suresh Kumar Singh |
|---|---|---|
| Interference with Departmental Proceedings |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the departmental proceedings and the penalty imposed, considering the procedural lapses in the inquiry.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the departmental proceedings and the penalty imposed? | Upheld the High Court’s decision. | The court found a serious lacuna in the departmental proceedings due to the non-examination of vital witnesses. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authority:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Rajasthan and Others v. Sujata Malhotra [2003] 9 SCC 286 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The court held that the judgment was not applicable to the present case, as there was a specific finding of a serious lacuna in the departmental proceedings. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Union of India’s submission that High Court should not have interfered with the departmental proceedings and penalty. | Rejected. The court found a serious lacuna in the departmental proceedings due to the non-examination of vital witnesses. |
| Suresh Kumar Singh’s submission that the High Court’s decision was correct due to procedural lapses. | Accepted. The court agreed that the failure to examine key witnesses undermined the fairness of the proceedings. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed the Authority |
|---|---|
| State of Rajasthan and Others v. Sujata Malhotra [2003] 9 SCC 286 | The court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case because there was a specific finding of a serious lacuna in the departmental proceedings due to the non-examination of vital witnesses. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapses in the departmental inquiry, particularly the failure to examine key witnesses. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair hearing and adherence to principles of natural justice in departmental proceedings. The lack of evidence due to the non-examination of witnesses was a critical factor in the court’s decision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Lapses | 50% |
| Non-examination of witnesses | 40% |
| Fair hearing | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Supreme Court observed, “The perusal of the record would clearly reveal that an opportunity was given by the Appellate Authority to the Enquiry Committee to examine the important witnesses. Even on remand, the said three witnesses were not examined.” The Court further noted, “In the absence of the examination of these three vital witnesses, the Appellate Authority found that the charges against the respondent were not fully proved.” The court also stated, “The present case has a specific finding that there is a serious lacuna in the conduct of the departmental proceedings in not examining the vital witnesses.”
Key Takeaways
- Departmental inquiries must adhere to principles of natural justice.
- Examination of key witnesses is crucial for a fair hearing.
- Failure to examine vital witnesses can invalidate departmental proceedings.
- High Courts can interfere in cases of serious procedural lapses in departmental inquiries.
- Employees are entitled to all dues if the departmental proceedings are set aside.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellants to clear all dues to the respondent within three months from the date of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a departmental inquiry is invalid if it fails to examine key witnesses, thereby violating principles of natural justice. This reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in such proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The court emphasized that not examining key witnesses in departmental proceedings is a serious flaw that can invalidate the entire process. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice in departmental inquiries.