Service Law

Departmental enquiry

— Enquiry procedure — Enquiry into allegations in respect of which the delinquent officer had not been charged with, held, was not proper — Inferences drawn by enquiry officer regarding misutilisation/misappropriation of telegraph copper wire by the appellant delinquent Engineer though no specific charge was framed in respect thereof — Charges framed related only to non-maintenance of register showing acquisition and utilisation of copper wire and failure to supervise work — Thus, disciplinary authority proceeded on a wrong premise — Evidences recorded and inferences drawn were not commensurate with the charges — Charges were vague — Testimony of witnesses deposing totally against the department was disbelieved without assigning any reasons therefor — Hence, appellant's removal from service on the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, not sustainable — Appellant directed to be reinstated in service, if not reached the age of superannuation, with 50% back wages, (2006) 5 SCC 88-A

Service Law

Departmental enquiry

— Generally — Nature of — Standard of proof required — Held, disciplinary proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge — Though proof beyond all reasonable doubt as required in criminal trial is not necessary in departmental proceedings, charges in said proceedings has to be proved by preponderance of probability, (2006) 5 SCC 88-B

Service Law

Departmental enquiry

— Enquiry officer — Function, powers and duties of — Held, he performs a quasi-judicial function — He 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 or refuse to consider the relevant facts — He cannot shift the burden of proof or 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, (2006) 5 SCC 88-C

Service Law

Departmental enquiry

— Delay in initiation of departmental enquiry — Held, initiation of disciplinary proceedings after 6 years and continuance thereof for a period of 7 years prejudiced the delinquent officer, (2006) 5 SCC 88-D

Service Law

Relief

— Case where order of removal from service based upon improper enquiry report held by Supreme Court to be not sustainable — In such case, the matter would have been remitted to the disciplinary authority — But, since it was an old matter (36 years old) and due to pendency of proceedings delinquent officer already suffered a lot, direction made to reinstate the said officer in service, if not reached the age of superannuation, with 50% of back wages, (2006) 5 SCC 88-E

Service Law

Departmental enquiry

— Appreciation of evidence — Witnesses examined on behalf of the department deposing totally against the department — Credibility of — Held, that per se would not mean that the said witnesses deposed falsely — If they deposed falsely, they should have been cross-examined, (2006) 5 SCC 88-F