SATYENDRA SINGH   [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.    [RESPONDENT(S)]

CIVIL APPEAL Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 29758 of 2018

(2JB, PS NARASIMHA and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ., delivered by Mehta J.)

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India directed the reinstatement of a government employee whose termination was based on a disciplinary inquiry imposing a major penalty without substantive proof of charges. The court reaffirmed that the recording of evidence is a mandatory procedural requirement in disciplinary proceedings involving major penalties, emphasizing the principles of fairness and natural justice. The case concerned an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, who faced allegations of irregularities. A charge sheet was issued on March 5, 2012, and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on November 29, 2012. Based on this report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalties, including a censure entry and the stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. However, the disciplinary proceedings were challenged on the grounds of procedural lapses.

The Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal initially quashed the penalty order, citing a lack of proper evidence and irrational findings by the Inquiry Officer. The High Court, however, reinstated the disciplinary authority’s order, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s decision. The court stressed the necessity of recording oral evidence in disciplinary inquiries involving major penalties, stating that this procedural requirement is fundamental to ensuring a fair and just outcome.

Referencing precedents such as Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat (2013), the bench highlighted that even in ex-parte inquiries, recording the testimony of witnesses is sine qua non for proving charges. Without such evidence, disciplinary proceedings lack legitimacy and fail to meet the legal and procedural standards under Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

The court observed that in the appellant’s case, no oral evidence was recorded by the department, rendering the inquiry proceedings void (non-est) in the eyes of the law. Justice Mehta, writing the judgment, noted that the Inquiry Officer’s findings were devoid of substantial evidence and failed to adhere to the procedural safeguards mandated by law. The Supreme Court also criticized the High Court for overturning the well-reasoned judgment of the Tribunal, which had rightly quashed the penalty order. The bench noted that the High Court erred by ignoring the procedural lapses and upholding a flawed disciplinary process. By restoring the Tribunal’s order, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that disciplinary proceedings must adhere strictly to procedural fairness, especially when significant penalties affecting an employee’s career and livelihood are involved.

This ruling serves as a reminder to disciplinary authorities across the country of their duty to ensure that inquiries are conducted transparently and in compliance with the law. It also reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting employees from arbitrary and procedurally defective disciplinary actions, thereby upholding their fundamental rights to fair treatment.