No inquiry needed for evident allegations: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, December 11

In a significant judgment with potential ramifications for legal procedures, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that an inquiry into allegations against an employee is uncalled for in matters where the accusations on the face of it are apparently established.

The ruling came as Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of the high court turned down a bunch of five petitions filed by officials holding different posts in Nabha. They were inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service following jailbreak on November 27, 2016. Among the petitioners was Paramjeet Singh Sandhu holding the post of Superintendent, Jail.

One of the issues before Justice Sharma’s Bench for the adjudication was whether the decision to dispense with the inquiry and passing the punishment order was illegal and unjustified. It was argued by a counsel that there was no occasion for invoking clause (c) of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the petitioners’ action could not be said to be a nature where the state’s security interest would be affected if an inquiry was conducted. As such, inquiry should not have been dispensed with while passing the order of dismissal.

Justice Sharma asserted the court was of the firm view that an individual had a right to defend himself as and when there was an allegation against him. The principles of natural justice demanded that he should be given an opportunity of hearing before the passing of an order.

The principles had been incorporated firmly in the rules relating to conduct of departmental inquiry for imposing “any of the major penalties”. “However, there may be circumstances where the allegations on the face of it are apparently so proved that no further inquiry relating to the facts needs to be conducted. Such inquiry, which is merely eyewash, can be dispensed with,” Justice Sharma added.

Before parting with the order, Justice Sharma asserted the court found that Punjab and other respondents had taken a decision after due application of mind. The requirement of reaching such a conclusion could not be termed unjustified or arbitrary in nature. As such, the decision taken to dispense with the inquiry and passing the punishment order could not be said to be illegal or unjustified.

Referring to the arguments related to the gravity of punishment awarded to the petitioners, Justice Sharma referred to a judgment before asserting that it had been held that the high court could not direct reconsidering punishment already imposed by the disciplinary authority where there was “prima facie guilt of great delinquency on the part of the delinquent”.