THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.versusRAJIT SINGH

790                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 790               [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A              THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
                                        v.
                                 RAJIT SINGH
                     (Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-2050 of 2022)
B
                               MARCH 22, 2022
               [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
             Service law: Misconduct – Financial irregularity –
      Disciplinary proceedings – Doctrine of equality – Applicability of
C     – In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer held the delinquent officer
      (respondent) guilty for misconduct alleged and charges levelled
      against him of causing monetary loss to the extent of Rs.
      22,48,964.42/- and other charges, which were held to be proved –
      Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment after giving respondent
D     opportunity to meet the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer –
      Tribunal set aside order of punishment by mainly applying the
      Doctrine of Equality and observing that as other officers involved
      in the incident were exonerated and/or no action was taken against
      them, therefore, no action was warranted against respondent also
      – Tribunal also observed that even otherwise, enquiry proceedings
E     were in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as relevant
      documents mentioned in charge sheet were not at all supplied to the
      respondent – High Court upheld the order of Tribunal – On appeal,
      held: The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been applied when
      the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority held the charges
F     proved against the respondent – The role of the each individual
      officer even with respect to the same misconduct is required to be
      considered in light of their duties of office – Merely because some
      other officers involved in the incident were exonerated and/or no
      action is taken against other officers cannot be a ground to set
      aside the order of punishment when the charges against respondent
G     were held to be proved in departmental enquiry – There cannot be
      any claim of negative equality in such case – Further, once it is
      found that the enquiry was not conducted properly and/or the same
      was in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court ought
      to remand the matter to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority
H     to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of

                                       790
   THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. v. RAJIT SINGH                     791


principles of natural justice and not reinstate the employee –            A
Therefore, in the facts of instant case, Tribunal and High Court
ought to have remanded the matter to Disciplinary Authority to
conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated – Matter
remanded to Disciplinary Authority to conduct fresh enquiry from
the stage it stood vitiated i.e. after the issuance of the charge sheet
                                                                          B
and to proceed further with the enquiry after furnishing all the
necessary documents mentioned in the chargesheet and after
following due principles of natural justice.
     Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to Disciplinary
Authority, the Court
                                                                          C
      HELD: 1. The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been
applied when the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority
held the charges proved against the delinquent officer. The role
of the each individual officer even with respect to the same
misconduct is required to be considered in light of their duties of
                                                                          D
office. Even otherwise, merely because some other officers
involved in the incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken
against other officers cannot be a ground to set aside the order
of punishment when the charges against the individual concerned
- delinquent officer are held to be proved in a departmental
enquiry. There cannot be any claim of negative equality in such           E
cases. [Para 7][795-F-G]
      2. The Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings
were against the principles of natural justice in as much as the
documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied
to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in      F
a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly
and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice,
in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such
and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/
Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from
                                                                          G
the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed
and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the
necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are
alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer.
[Para 8][796-A-C]
                                                                          H
792            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
            vs. A. Masilamani (2013) 6 SCC 530 : [2012] 11 SCR
            35 – relied on.
                              Case Law Reference
      [2012] 11 SCR 35                 relied on                   Para 8
B
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-
      2050 of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2020 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Service Bench No.5554
C     of 2020 and Order dated 03.09.2021 in Civil Misc. Review Application
      Defective No.138 of 2021.
            V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee,
      Shantanu Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
           Utkarsh Srivastava, Ms. Ila Shikhar Sheel, Advs. for the
D     Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
E     and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
      Bench in Service Bench No. 5554 of 2020 by which the High Court has
      dismissed the said writ petition and has refused to set aside the order
      passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred
      to as “Tribunal”) passed in Claim Petition No.2226 of 2017 whereby the
      claim petition of the respondent employee came to be allowed and the
F     order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty/
      punishment came to be set aside, the State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred
      the present appeals.
             2. That the respondent employee was serving as a Junior Engineer
      at Balia. An enquiry was conducted by a Departmental Task Force where
G     it was found that he had committed financial irregularities causing loss
      to the Government. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
      respondent and others. The respondent was served with charge sheet.
      That thereafter the Enquiry Officer held the charges alleged against the
      respondent employee as proved and consequently also held the
H     misconduct proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings
   THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. v. RAJIT SINGH                           793
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of recovery of              A
Government loss of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- as per the rules from the salary;
temporarily stopping two salary increments and the remarks given for
the year 2017-2018.
       2.1 The respondent filed a representation against the said order
before the State Government, which came to be rejected. That thereafter         B
the respondent filed a Claim Petition No.2226 of 2017 before the Tribunal
challenging the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Tribunal allowed the said petition and quashed the punishment mainly
on the ground of Doctrine of Equality and also on the ground that the
enquiry conducted was in breach of principles of natural justice in as
much as the relevant documents mentioned in the charge sheet were               C
not supplied to the delinquent officer.
       2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the Tribunal quashing and setting aside the punishment, the State preferred
the writ petition before the High court. By the impugned judgment and
order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has refused      D
to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. That thereafter the
State preferred Review ApplicationNo.138 of 2021 before the High Court.
The High Court has dismissed the said review application also.
       2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the High Court in Service Bench            E
No.5554 of 2020 as well as the order passed by the High Court rejecting
the review application, the State has preferred the present appeals.
       3. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State has vehemently submitted that in the present case fullest
opportunity was given to the respondent – delinquent officer by the             F
Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the respondent was served
with the Enquiry Report and thereafter was given the opportunity by the
Disciplinary Authority and after considering the detailed representation
by the respondent employee againstthe findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment, which ought         G
not to have been set aside by the Tribunal.
      3.1 It is further submitted that assuming that the Enquiry
Proceedings were vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of
natural justice, in that case also as per the settled proposition of law, the
matter ought to have been remanded to the Enquiry Officer and the
                                                                                H
794             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage
      of violation of the principlesof natural justice. It is submitted that however,
      when it is a case of loss to the extent of Rs. 22,48,964.42/-, that too, by
      the Junior Engineer, the respondent employee cannot be permitted to let
      off.
B            3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shukla, learned Senior Advocate
      appearing on behalf of the State that another ground given by the Tribunal
      as well as the High Court that other employees involved in respect of
      the same incident were exonerated and/or no action was taken against
      them, is concerned, it is submitted that on the aforesaid ground, the
      Enquiry Report and the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
C
      Authority cannot be set aside. It is submitted that it depends upon the
      individual role played by the concerned employee. It is submitted that
      even otherwise merely because some other employees involved in respect
      of the alleged misconduct might have been exonerated and/or no action
      was taken against them, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of
D     punishment imposed in case of an employee, who is found to be guilty of
      misconduct.
             4. Shri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing on behalf
      of the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal as well
      as the High Court.
E
            4.1 It is submitted that considering the fact that all other officers,
      who were also involved in respect of the same incident, namely, Assistant
      Engineer and Executive Engineer were exonerated and therefore
      applying the Doctrine of Equality, both, the Tribunal as well as the High
      Court have rightly set aside the order of punishment imposed by the
F     Disciplinary Authority with respectto the alleged misconduct for which
      other employees came to be exonerated.
             4.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise, the enquiry
      conducted was in total breach of principles of natural justice in as much
      as the documentsmentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied
G     to the respondent – delinquent officer and therefore the entire
      departmental enquiry proceedings were vitiated. It is submitted that
      therefore the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of punishment
      imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which is rightly not interfered by
      the High Court.
H
   THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. v. RAJIT SINGH                          795
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties         A
at length.
       6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Enquiry Officer
held the respondent – delinquent officer guilty for the misconduct alleged
and the charges levelled againsthim of causing monetary loss to the
extent of Rs. 22,48,964.42/- and other charges, which are held to be           B
proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment
after giving the respondent opportunity to meet the findings recorded by
the Enquiry Officer and thereafter imposed the punishment. The Tribunal
set aside the orderof punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authorityby
mainly applying the Doctrineof Equality and by observing that as other
officers involved in the incident were exonerated and/or no action was         C
taken against them, therefore, no action was warranted against respondent
also. The Tribunal has also observed and held that even otherwise, the
enquiry proceedings were in breach of the principles of natural justice in
as much as the relevant documents mentioned in the charge sheet were
not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. The order passed by the         D
Tribunal has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment
and order.
       7. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the order of
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority applying the Doctrine
of Equality on the ground that other officers involved in the incident         E
have been exonerated and/or no action has been taken against them, is
concerned, we are of the firm view that on the aforesaid ground, the
order of punishment could not have been set aside by the Tribunal and
the High court. The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been applied
when the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority held the charges
proved against the delinquent officer. The role of the each individual         F
officer even with respect to the same misconduct is required to be
considered in light of their duties of office. Even otherwise, merely
because some other officers involved in the incident are exonerated
and/or no action is taken against other officers cannot be a ground to set
aside the order of punishment when the charges against the individual          G
concerned - delinquent officer are held to be proved in a departmental
enquiry. There cannot be any claim of negative equality in such cases.
Therefore, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed
a grave error in quashing and setting aside the order of punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by applying the Doctrine of
Equality.                                                                      H
796             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A            8. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal
      also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles
      of natural justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the charge
      sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled
      proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not
      conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of
B
      natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as
      such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary
      Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation
      of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be
      proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned
C     in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the
      delinquent officer in the instant case. In the case of Chairman, Life
      Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013)
      6 SCC 530, which was also pressed into service on behalf of the
      appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under:-
D            “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside
             an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not
             properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It
             must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it
             to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and
             conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC
E            727], HiranMayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for
             Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S.
             Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S.
             Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30]).”
             9. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
F     Court, it appears that when the aforesaid submission and the aforesaid
      decision was pressed into service, the High Court has not considered
      the same on the ground that the other officers involved in respectof the
      same incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken against them.
      Applying the law laid down in the case of A. Masilamani (supra) to
G     the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as
      well as the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the
      Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood
      vitiated. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court in not allowing
      further proceedings from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance
      of the charge sheet, is unsustainable.
H
   THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. v. RAJIT SINGH                             797
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       10. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated             A
above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the High Court
quashing and setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority byapplying the Doctrine of Equality is hereby
quashed and set aside. However, as the enquiry is found to be vitiated
and is found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice in as
                                                                                  B
much as it is alleged that the relevant documents mentioned in the charge
sheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer, we remand the matter
to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage it
stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet and to proceed
further with the enquiry after furnishing all the necessary documents
mentioned in the charge sheet and after following due principles of natural       C
justice. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six
months from today.
      Present appeals are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.                                                                D
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.


Devika Gujral                                                  Appeals allowed.

                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H