Dispensation of inquiry

2017 SCMR 1880 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5(1)(b)(ii), 7(f), proviso (ii)Dispensation of inquiryProprietyAbsence without leave for seven daysMajor penaltyDismissal from service

Appellant-police official took up the plea that he was fatigued with over work and upon refusal of his request for leave by the SHO he absented himself from duty on account of his physical condition, and that he had tendered a medical certificate issued by the Government Hospital

Validity

No medical certificate was available on the Court's record

Service Tribunal took into account the 27 prior instances during appellant's service when he was punished with minor penalties for absenting himself from duty without approval

Provision of S. 5(1)(b)(ii) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, required reasons to be recorded for initiating proceedings against a government servant or for documentary evidence to be available with the department to justify such action

Neither documentary evidence nor reasons were available in the show-cause-notice or in the impugned dismissal order passed against the appellant

Appellant had been subjected to a major penalty terminating his service prematurely

Spirit of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 was that such terminal punitive action against a civil servant should be taken after an inquiry had been conducted

In the present case, whether the appellant had a satisfactory explanation for his absence for the period mentioned in the show-cause-notice had not been attended to by the department

Opportunity to record evidence ought to have been granted to the appellant

Likewise, the availability of documentary evidence, if any, with the department that justified dispensation of an inquiry ought to have been disclosed/confronted to the appellant

In the absence thereof, the impugned punishment had been imposed upon the appellant without complying with the provisions of the law

Impugned dismissal order of appellant was set aside and he was reinstated in service

Supreme Court directed that the department shall conduct an inquiry into the allegation of wilful absence from duty against the appellant, and in case the appellant succeeded in making out his defence, the matter of giving him back benefits shall also be decided by the competent authority

Appeal was allowed accordingly.