The Allahabad High Court has set aside the dismissal of a PAC constable, holding that the Enquiry Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by not only recording the charges as proved but also recommending the punishment of dismissal from service, such an action contrary to the prevailing rules.
The Court observed:
“…the enquiry report would reveal that the enquiry officer, in the zeal of proving the charges against the delinquent employee, had exceeded its jurisdiction while proposing punishment, that too by referring to the specific provisions contained under the 1991 Rules, i.e., Rule 4(1)(a)(i). Certainly, the task which has been assigned to the Enquiry Officer is to conduct enquiry proceedings while recording its findings, whether the charges are proved or not, against the delinquent employee, and it is the prerogative and jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to pass a punishment order if there is a variety of punishments provided in the Rules.”
But in the present case, the Enquiry Officer went a step further, and himself determined the punishment of dismissal from service.
This order was passed by Justice Vikas Budhwar while allowing the writ petition filed by PAC constable Lal Mani.
According to the petition, a charge sheet was served upon Constable Lal Mani in 2014 on the allegation that he was found in an intoxicated condition during duty on 31 December 2013. In the enquiry report dated 4 September 2014, the Enquiry Officer not only held the charge proved but also wrote that there was no justification to retain such an employee in service and recommended dismissal under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. On this basis, the dismissal order was passed on 18 October 2014. His appeal and revision were also rejected on 10 February 2015 by Deputy Inspector of Police, PAC, Etah, and on 21 August 2015 by Inspector General of Police, PAC, Moradabad. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders before the High Court in the present petition.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh and the Allahabad High Court decision in Mohammad Miyan vs. State of U.P., noting that when the rules prescribe a particular manner of exercising power, that manner alone must be followed. An Enquiry Officer’s recommendation regarding punishment vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings from the very root.
Holding that this “fundamental error” rendered the entire enquiry illegal, the Court quashed the dismissal, the appellate order, and the revisional order. The Court directed the disciplinary authority to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer within two weeks, proceed from the stage of the petitioner’s earlier reply, and complete the enquiry within two months, followed by a final decision within one month thereafter.
Pending the final decision, the Court ordered that the petitioner’s service status shall revert to what it was before the dismissal order.
Case: Lal Mani vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
