HC raps state for bureaucratic misadventure, imposes Rs 1 lakh litigation costs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) has rapped Haryana for brazen misconduct in initiating disciplinary action against a senior engineer, apparently to clear way for a junior’s promotion. Quashing the disciplinary action, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj directed the officer’s promotion from December 2011 with full consequential benefits, while imposing Rs 1 lakh litigation costs to be paid to the petitioner-employee.

“Such acts are not unknown or unheard of in the bureaucratic circles where an attempt is made to deny eligible and qualified persons their rightful dues only for promoting those persons who have the protection of the people in the seat of power. However, it is only in these circumstances that courts are required to tilt the scales and lift veil over the motive which led to the initiation of such disciplinary proceedings,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.

Recording displeasure at “such conduct of all who were involved in this process,” Justice Bhardwaj directed the Chief Secretary to communicate it “as an advance reminder against such misadventures in the future”.

During hearing, Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench was told that petitioner Balbir Singh Saini was working as Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Department when he was served a charge sheet in September 2010 for works executed in 2007 as Executive Engineer. The charges revolved around the re-allotment of a work contract.

In a civil suit instituted by the ousted contractor, the authorities defended the Executive Engineer’s action of getting the work executed through another agency. Justice Bhardwaj noted that allegation in the charge sheet was in contrast with the written statement filed before the civil court.

“I fail to understand how the respondent-authorities could have initiated a charge sheet by levelling allegations, which countered their own stand in proceedings before the civil court… Contradictory stands as means to inflict punishment or initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be permitted at convenience,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.

The court added that the law did not authorise an inquiry officer to disagree with the Civil Court’s findings, more-so when these had become binding on them. “Once their stand already stood accepted by the Civil Court, it operated as an estoppel against the department to take any stand to the contrary,” the court stated.

The court said it had, as such, reasons to believe that the petitioner’s stand regarding the issuance of charge sheet solely to extend the benefit of promotion to juniors was correct as it preceded immediately a junior’s promotion order passed in 2011.

Justice Bhardwaj said the state counsel repeatedly reminded the court of its limitations regarding judicial review in departmental proceedings once the procedure was followed. “But this court feels that dispensation of justice is not a mechanical process of checking ‘tick boxes’ and to rule that once all boxes are ticked, justice is served. It is a process where dispassionate judicial mind has to scan through the entire process of decision making and to ensure that it reflected fair play in action. A court of law is not always a nonparticipating spectator, but is more often an evaluator of the act and the intent,” he said.

Justice Bhardwaj cautioned that courts could not remain shackled by mechanical limitations when illegality was apparent. “Violators cannot be permitted to take a shield that a writ court will not be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by them, even though illegalities may be rampant, brazen and self-evident…. While the violator devises new means to defeat rights of citizens, a court cannot take refuge in shackles of procedure... In doing so, it will be acting contrary to its object of creation — restoring order and rule of the law,” Justice Bhardwaj said.