Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority must be different in Inquiry Cases of Employees
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh due to serious misconduct in the disciplinary proceedings against an employee. The court found that a senior state officer acted in multiple roles—Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, and Appellate Authority—creating a situation that led to a miscarriage of justice.
Key Findings by the Court
Justice Alok Mathur, presiding over the case, noted that Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, the Secretary of Election Anubhag in Lucknow, acted in all three capacities. The court emphasized that this combination of roles violated legal principles, rendering the entire disciplinary process invalid. The judge stated, “The entire exercise will have to be carried out afresh in accordance with law.”
Background of the Case
The case began when the petitioner, who was serving as a Senior Assistant in the Office of the District Relation Officer/District Magistrate in Amethi, faced departmental proceedings. After the proceedings began, he was suspended from his position. During this time, the Inquiry Officer was changed twice, and the Sub Divisional Officer from Gauriganj was finally appointed to conduct the inquiry.
The petitioner argued that despite his requests for documents related to the charges against him, these documents were never provided. After the inquiry concluded, he was demoted to the lowest rank and faced a hefty penalty of ₹6,59,487, which was to be deducted from his salary.
The petitioner claimed that the inquiry violated the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. His appeal against the punishment was rejected by Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, who held all three roles during the proceedings.
Court’s Ruling
The High Court ruled that both the disciplinary and appellate proceedings were flawed as they contradicted the principles of natural justice and exhibited bias. Justice Mathur stated, “In all three stages, the requirement of law is that the Inquiry Officer must be a different person from the Disciplinary Authority, and the Appellate Authority must be a superior authority reviewing the Disciplinary Authority’s decision.”
The court stressed the importance of having different officers at each stage to ensure a fair hearing.
Remarks on Conduct of State Officials
The court criticized the actions of Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, noting that a senior officer should have a strong understanding of the law and the principles of natural justice. The judge highlighted that such miscarriages of justice result in significant losses to the state’s finances, as substantial time and resources are wasted in these improper inquiry proceedings.
The court urged that those conducting disciplinary actions should be well-versed in the relevant laws and procedures before being allowed to oversee such matters.
Direction for Accountability
The court ordered that its findings be presented to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh in Lucknow, initiating appropriate proceedings against the officer involved. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the State Government was directed to pay ₹25,000 as a cost for the wrongful proceedings.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper procedures in disciplinary matters and ensuring justice for employees.
