Jharkhand High Court: Deepak Roshan, J., partly allowed the challenge against the order of the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner had been dismissed from service on account of dereliction of duty. Noticing that the charges framed against the petitioner were vague the Bench stated,
“…even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague; that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action.”
The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as Constable. While the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad, a departmental proceeding was initiated against alleging dereliction of duty. The charges were framed against the petitioner which inter alia, alleged unauthorized leave for 2 days, and that the petitioner was a habitual drunker and frequently threatens the superior officer resulting in dereliction of duty and insubordination.
The enquiry proceeding was conducted wherein the charges were declared proved and resultantly, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Though the petitioner had challenged the impugned order, both the superior Authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement.
After going through the enquiry report it the Bench observed that the only proved part of the charge was that petitioner left the place of work in the evening on 22-09-2009 without any permission of leave or without any information to the superior officer which is not permissible in the respondents department. However, the other parts of the charge that he usually remains under the influence of liquor could not be proved in a sense that the same was vague in nature. The Bench remarked,
“In the entire charge-sheet there is no reference, whatsoever, as to when the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. On the one hand, neither any medical test was done nor the respondent has done earlier any medical examination to find out as to whether the petitioner was ever under the influence of liquor.”
Similarly, the last part of the charge that after taking liquor the petitioner frequently threatens the superior officer; was also vague, inasmuch as, there was no date or the name of the officer to whom the petitioner had ever assaulted under the influence of liquor.
Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR (1963) SC 1723, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 3 SCC 454 and in Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, (2011) 14 SCC 379, the Bench stated that the law is well settled that even in a domestic enquiry, the charges must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be obligatory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague; that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences.
Further, noticing that during pendency of appeal before the Director General of Police; a recommendation was made by the ADGP (Headquarter) to inflict minor punishment for two days absent such as stoppage of increment etc., the Bench opined that the such recommendation strengthened the fact that even the respondent authorities were aware that the charges were vague and only for absence of two days of dereliction of duty, termination of service was highly excessive.
Consequently, the impugned order of termination was quashed and set aside along with the appellate order and the revisional order. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service and the matter was remitted back to the respondent authority to pass a fresh order only on the quantum of punishment for unauthorised absent from duty. [Ranjit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 893, decided on 02-12-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance by:
For the Petitioner: Amritansh Vats, Advocate
For the State: Ashok Yadav, Advocate
