# UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. PRAKASH KUMAR - **Citation:** [2008] 17 S.C.R. 855 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2008-12-17 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7349 of 2008 - **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-ors-v-prakash-kumar-24074 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote ... Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings - Application for summoning qf witness by delinquent employee not considered by Enquiry c officer - Justification of - Held: Not justified - It was obligatory on part of Enquiry officer to pass an order in the application - He could not refuse to consider the same - Enquiry officer, being a quasi judicial authority, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement D of principles of natural justice - If disciplinary proceedings was not fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn that the delinquent employee was prejudiced thereby- Establishment Code of Indian Railways, Vol I - Chapter V, para 3 - Principles of natural justice. E Disciplinary proceedings - Initiated after raid conducted by Vigilance Department - Appointment of the Chief, Vigilance Department as Enquiry officer - Propriety of- Held: Not proper - It was unfair to the delinquent employee. Respondent was working in the Department of F -- t Railways as Inspector, Works. Charge-sheet was issued against him on the premise that he accepted substandard wood. Respondent gave written letter requesting the Inquiry Officer to summon one 'B' as ,a witness. 'B' was an Assistant Engineer purportedly G responsible for quality of wood. The Inquiry Offic~r ignored the letter of respondent. In the disciplinary '"'(' proceedings, respondent was found guilty and as penalty, his pay was reduced. Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty by further reducing the pay. 855 H 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A Respondent filed application before the Tribunal inter alia contending. that since 'B' was not examined as a +~ witness, the order imposing penalty was unsustainable. Tribunal allowed the application. Writ petition filed by Appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the B present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after a raid was conducted by the Vigilance ,>· Department. The enquiry officer was the Chief of the c Vigilance Department. He evidently being from the Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to the delinquent officer, should not have been appointed as an enquiry officer at all. [Para 14] (861-G] 1.2. In any event, the Tribunal as also the High Court D cannot be sa·id to· have erred in holding that 'B' should have been examined as a witness. The Central Railway Administration as far back as on 3-4-1990 had issued a clarification stating that woodwork shall continue to be passed by Asst. Engineer. (Paras 12 and 16] (861-A, DJ E 1.3. The principles of natural justice demand that an applica.tion for summoning a witness. by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said application. He could not refuse to F consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether 'r any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An G enquiry.officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn th~t the delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby. Though over H UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 857 TANDON the years, the principle of natural justice has been A watered down but in a situation of this nature, the ~-r concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference. [Paras 17, 19 and 20) [862-C-D-H; 863-A-B] 8 M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88 and S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 S· Department. The enquiry officer was the Chief of the c Vigilance Department. He evidently being from the Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to the delinquent officer, should not have been appointed as an enquiry officer at all. [Para 14] (861-G] 1.2. In any event, the Tribunal as also the High Court D cannot be sa·id to· have erred in holding that 'B' should have been examined as a witness. The Central Railway Administration as far back as on 3-4-1990 had issued a clarification stating that woodwork shall continue to be passed by Asst. Engineer. (Paras 12 and 16] (861-A, DJ E 1.3. The principles of natural justice demand that an applica.tion for summoning a witness. by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said application. He could not refuse to F consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether 'r any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An G enquiry.officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn th~t the delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby. Though over H UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 857 TANDON the years, the principle of natural justice has been A watered down but in a situation of this nature, the ~-r concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference. [Paras 17, 19 and 20) [862-C-D-H; 863-A-B] 8 M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88 and S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 S- ;.,. c the same done through an agency of his choice. The choice is confined either to a Board or a named Officer. The procedure in all cases is to be in accordance with t_hat laid down in Rule 1709 ante." D 4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed for holding the said disciplinary enquiry. He was a· Chief Engineer being on deputation to the Vigilance Department. Whereas the appointing authority of the respondent was of the rank of District Railway Manager, the. Disciplinary authority is only a Senior Executive Engineer. The District Railway Manager of Railways E is ~lso the appellate authority. 5. Before the disciplinary proceedings commenced, respondent, indisputably by a letter dated 20.2.1996 requested the Inquiry Officer to summon the Assistant Engineer Mr. B.S. Walia, stating : F "You will be kind enough to fi?< up date of the next inquiry in first Fortnight of March 1996 anywhere as per your convenience. ~ .... Shri B.S. Walia, A.E.N.(M) STA now A.E.N. (M) N.G.P. G "Headquarter" must be called for as the AEN who recorded 100% test check. All other witnesses to whom the vigilance wants to examine may be called and there presence,be ensured. Further the inquiries date to be fixed for.examination and 7--. H the same sequence arguments are also submitted. This UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 859 TANDON [S.B. SINHA, J.] will facilitate early completion of an inquiry. A _._.., EX AEN (C) STA Shri B.S. Walia, who is of course is a Rly. Witness but since he is very much involved in measurements and checking in supply, he may be specifically be requested to be present to clear many contradiction to enable the inquiry officer to derive at a fair B and free judicious conclusion." 6. The said letter was not responded to. It was not rejected either. Conceded_ly, the said Mr. Walia was not examined. 7. In the disciplinary proceedings, respondent was found guilty. Punishment of reduction of pay to the lower stage in the C scale of 6500-10500/- for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed on him by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 6.1.1998. He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed. The Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty by directing reduction D of his pay to the lowest stage of Rs.6500/- in the scale of pay -+ of Rs.6500-10500/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect. 8. Order of the Appellate Authority was questioned by the respondent by filing an original application before the Central E Administration Tribunal. In the said application, respondent, inter alia, contended that Inquiry Officer being superior in rank to the Disciplinary Authority and Mr. B.S. Walia having not been examined as a witness by the Department, the order imposing penalty was unsustainable. F The learned Tribunal held : "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find from Annexure-A3 that "AEN is responsible for correctness of m/ment for all works" and applicant has also requested to the respondents to call the AEN for clarifying the picture. G But, he was not called whereas he was main person to clarify the picture. In the reply the respondents have stated that Shri Walia was interrogated by the vigilance and nothing was found against him. Hence he was not called nor cited as witness. It seems to be not satisfactory, H A B c 860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' [2008] 17 S.C.R. therefore, the contention of the respondents is rejected. We have also found that the enquiry officer was from a different department and of a different division and thus there is no question of daring to disagree or a reappreciated the findings by independent application of mind. However, the argument advanced by the , respondents also does not seem to be proper and justified. The enquiry officer must be junior to the disciplinary authority. He may be of any department. If the enquiry office'r is senior to the disciplinary authority, the same is neither legal nor justified and it is against the principles of natural justice." ' 9. The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment. 0 10. Ms. Rajni Ohri Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that respondent cannot be said to have been prejudiced by reason of the appointment of the Chief Engineer as an enquiry officer who was on deputation to Vigilance Department as he was from a different department and, thus, the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority E were not working under him. In any event, had such a plea been · raised by the respondent before the disciplinary authority, the enquiry officer could have been changed and in that view of the matter, he must be held to have waived his right. It was urged that as the function of the disciplinary authority and the enquiry F officer are different, the question of suffering any prejudice by the respondent did not arise. So far as non-summoning of the witness of Mr. Walia is concerned, the learned counsel would contend, he had been interrogated by the vigilance department and as he was found to be innocent, it was not found necessary G to examine him. It was always open to the prosecution, the learned counsel would contend, to examine or not to examine any witness on behalf of the department. 11. Mr. Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that examination H of Mr. Walia was essential as the passing of timber and wood + -r UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 861 TANDON [S.B. SINHA, J.] work was within the domain of the Executive Engineer. A 12. The learned counsel appears to be correct. The Central Railway Administration as far back as on 3.4.1990 • issued a clarification as to whether the power of the Assistant Engineer to pass the timber/wood work has been taken away or not, to state : B "The matter has been scrutinized & it is observed that the confusion has arisen due to use of the word 'Engineer' in the specification No.1001. Corelating the word Engineer with GCC implied Divisional Engineer and hence the .interpretation was extended accordingly in the circular c referred above. However, after reconsidering the matter and going through the instructions on delegation of powers in respect of measurement (RB's letter No.71/W1/CT/16 dated 23.7.87) D it is seen that AEN is responsible for correctness of ml ment for all works. Wood work and other materials have ~ been traditionally been passed by Asst. Engineer. Hence, it has been decided by CE in partial modification of above circular that woodwork shall continue to be passed by Asst. Engineer." E 13. Respondent, in his defence, contended that the measurement book was checked by Mr. Walia on 5.7.1991 and 6. 7.1991. According to him, he was not at all responsible either as regards the quality of wood or the correctness of F measurement of the timber in question. . ~ 14. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated only after a raid was conducted by the Vigilance Department. The enquiry officer was the Chief of the Vigilance Department. He evidf!!ntly being from the Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to G the delinquent officer, should not have been appointed as an enquiry officer at all. 15. From the evidence of another Assistant Engineer who had taken part in the raid, it is evident that the "'alleged loss caused to the railways was negligible and mere marginal H 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. .,>, A allowances are permitted for measurement of 'scantlings and • planks' . r .16. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the. opinion that the Tribunal as also the High Court cannot be said to have erred in holding that the said Mr. Walia should have been B examined as a witness. 17. The principles of natural justice demand that an application for summoning a witness by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory ir on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said c application. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it ... or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An enquiry 0 officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and r~asonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice. t 18. In M. V. Bij/ani v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 88], this Court has held : E "Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who '\ upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion F 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. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject G 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." , .... 19. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly ·~ H conducted, an inference can be drawn that the d,elinquent officer UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PRAKASH KUMAR 863 TANDON [S.B. SINHA, J.] was prejudiced thereby. A 20. In S.L Kapoorv. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 379, this Court has held that non-compliance of the principles of natural justice itself causes prejudice. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said principle has since been watered down but in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that the 8 concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference. 21. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/-. C 8.8.8. Appeal dismissed.