Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Narendra Prasad Pandey vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 9 November, 2023
Page 1 of 16
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 332/00228/2022
This the 09th day of November, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J
Narendra Prasad Pandey, aged about 56 years, Son of Late
Chhundan Pandey, Resident of-Village-Bahoripur, Post Office-
Bira Patti, District-Varanasi, Presently attached with the
Agriculture Production Commissioner Branch, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, at Lucknow.
.....Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Shireesh Kumar.
VERSUS.
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of
Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievance & Pensions, Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. State of U.P. through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Appointment and Personnel, Government of U.P., Lok
Bhawan, Lucknow.
3. Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka
Road, New Delhi-110001 Through its Secretary.
............ Respondents.
By Advocate: Shri M.K. Singh for Ms.Prayagmati Gupta for
Resp.No.1
Shri Shailendra Singh Rajawat for Respondent
No.2.
Shri Vijay Vikram Singh for Respondent No.3.
O R D E R (ORAL)
Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
Page 2 of 16"(i). to set aside the stern warning and caution awarded to the applicant vide order dated 21.04.2022 as contained in Annexure No.A-21 to this original application.
(ii). To quash the order dated 21.04.2022 as contained in Annexure No.A-25 to this original application.
(iii). to declare the applicant entitled to all the consequential service benefit accruing in his favour after expunction of the stern warning and caution awarded to him vide order dated 21.04.2022 and setting aside of the order dated 21.04.2022.
(iv). Any other order which is deemed just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice along with the cost of this original application."
3. Tersely put the case of the applicant is that applicant is an IAS officer of (U.P.-2010 batch). Applicant was deputed for election duty as an Observer in the State Assembly Election 244 Kashipur, Purulia of West Bengal on 05.02.2021 and State of UP issued consequential order on 06.03.2021. On 08.03.2021, applicant immediately reported for election duty. On 22.03.2021, Election Commission of India passed an order whereby applicant was relieved from the election duty with immediate effect. Applicant reported back in State of UP on 23.03.2021. On 24.03.2021, applicant was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry on the recommendation made by the Election Commission of India.
4. Aggrieved with the suspension order dated 24.03.2021, applicant submitted an appeal on 02.04.2021 before the Union of India for revocation of said suspension order. The order of suspension dated 24.03.2021 was not approved by the Respondent No.1 accordingly, said suspension order dated 24.03.2021 ceased to be operative on expiry of forty-five days i.e. Page 3 of 16 on 09.05.2021.
5. Respondent No.2 issued an order annexing therewith a charge sheet containing five charges on 25.05.2021. Enquiry Officer was appointed. Applicant submitted reply to the charge sheet and denied the charges. Enquiry Officer issued an order calling upon the applicant to appear before her on 25.06.2021 at 04:00 p.m. and in compliance thereto, applicant appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 25.06.2021 but no enquiry was at all conducted. On 06.01.2022, Respondent No.2 served the copy of enquiry report dated 29.11.2021 upon the applicant and called upon the applicant to submit objections against the same.
6. In the Enquiry Report dated 29.11.2021 charge no.1 to 3 and 5 were not found established whereas charge no.4 was found partially proved. Applicant submitted objection to the enquiry report and disputed the findings recorded by the enquiry officer.
7. Respondent No.2 issued an order dated 21.04.2022, whereby the departmental enquiry instituted against the applicant was concluded with a stern warning and caution to the applicant to not to repeat it in future. Punishment Rules do not provide stern warning and a caution.
Hence, this OA.
8. Respondent No.1 did not file Counter Affidavit. During the course of submissions, it was stated that Respondent No.1 is a proforma party.
9. Respondent No.2 by filing their Counter Affidavit has, inter-
Page 4 of 16alia, stated that the order impugned in the present OA dated 21.04.2022 has been passed by the disciplinary authority against the applicant under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules, 1969 keeping in view the seriousness of the charge found proved against him, whereby stern warning has been issued to the applicant to remain careful in future and not to assign any election duty to him. Further, the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceedings, does not suffer from any infirmity. OA is liable to be rejected being devoid of merits.
10. Respondent No.3 by filing their Counter Affidavit has, inter- alia, stated that the present OA has been preferred against the actions of the Respondent No.2 in relation to two orders, both dated 21.04.2022 whereby the applicant was issued a stern warning and a caution to remain careful in the future and not to be assigned any election duties. The applicant was appointed as General Observer in 244-Kashipur Assembly Constituency of West Bengal as directed by the Election Commission of India.
11. The District Magistrate, Purulia vide letter dated 31.03.2021 informed to the Chief Election Officer, West Bengal about the shocking behavior of the applicant during the election duty as an observer. The actions of the applicant were in contravention of the Code of Ethics for Central Observers of the Commission. On 22.03.2021, it was informed to the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal about the removal of the applicant from Observer duty with the direction to leave the constituency latest by 3 PM on 22.03.2021 and report to his parent cadre. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant and a stern warning has been issued to the applicant to remain careful in future and not to assign any election duty to him.
Page 5 of 1612. The applicant filed Rejoinder Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the OA. It is stated that the order dated 24.03.2021 is not in accordance with All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The applicant was unnecessarily placed under suspension, subjected to disciplinary proceedings and ultimately an adverse entry was passed against him, which is violation of Rules of 1969. Moreover, none of the charges leveled against the applicant was found proved against him and for this reason also, not even a warning could have been awarded to him as such the stern warning and caution awarded vide order dated 21.04.2022 are not legally sustainable and deserve to be quashed.
13. The enquiry was not conducted as per the procedure provided under the Rules of 1969. The applicant was not afforded an opportunity of defence as per the rules and without examination of the complainants, witnesses as well as evidences. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report holding the applicant partially guilty for Charge No.4. Even the enquiry report dated 29.11.2021 does not hold the applicant guilty for the actual charges leveled against him as such the reason for holding the applicant partially guilty for the charge no.4 is altogether different than the actual charge leveled against the applicant and all these material facts establish that not only the institution of disciplinary enquiry against the applicant was unwarranted and unjustified but the stern warning and caution awarded vide order dated 21.04.2022 and the order dated 21.04.2022 are also bad and not legally sustainable. Applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.03.2021 on the recommendation of the Election Commission of India without ascertaining the culpability of the applicant by the disciplinary authority and without independent Page 6 of 16 application of mind by him and for all these reasons, not only the suspension of the applicant, institution of disciplinary proceedings and the stern warning and caution awarded vide order dated 21.04.2022 and the order dated 21.04.2022 are also bad and deserve to be quashed.
14. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that during the enquiry proceedings complainant Dr.Akansha Bhaskar was not produced before the enquiry officer, hence, enquiry report is without any evidence. Further submitted that complaint was made against the applicant after the applicant was relieved from the election duties. The alleged complaint is fabricated and an afterthought.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 countered the aforesaid submissions and contended that the complaint was made on 22.03.2021 and applicant was also relieved by the Election Commission of India on 22.03.2021, which is evident from the list of dates and events enumerated by the applicant. Contention of fabrication and afterthought of complaint is baseless. Further submitted that there can be no evidence of conversation between the complainant and applicant and this fact is mentioned in the enquiry report also. Only charge no.4 has been found partially proved, therefore, punishment of stern warning and caution has been awarded to the applicant.
16. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 drew the attention of the Tribunal towards the OM issued by Government of India, which is (Annexure -13) at page-143 of the M.A.No.1364/2023 and argued that Election Commission of India has disciplinary jurisdiction over government servants deputed for election duties.
Page 7 of 1617. From the O.M. No. No.11012/7/98-Estl(A) (page-143) it is abundantly manifest that Election Commission can made recommendations to the competent authority for taking disciplinary action over the officers deputed to perform election duties, any act of insubordination or dereliction to the duties while they are on election duties.
18. The O.M. reads as follows:-
"No.11012/7/98-Estl(A) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, dated the 7 November, 2000 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Disciplinary jurisdiction of Election Commission of India over Government servants deputed for election duties.
_________ The undersigned is directed to say that one of the issues Writ Petition (C) No.606/1993 in the matter of Election Commission of India Vs. Union of India & Others was regarding jurisdiction of Election Commission of India over the Government servants deputed for election duties under section 28A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act. 1950. The Supreme Court by its order dated 21.9.2000 disposed of the said petition in terms of the settlement between the Union of India and Election Commission of India. The said Terms of Settlement are as under:-
"The disciplinary functions of the Election Commission over officers, staff and police deputed to perform election duties shall extend to --
a) Suspending any officer/official/police personnel for insubordination or dereliction of duty;
b) Substituting any officer/official/police personnel by another such person, and returning the substituted individual to the cadre to which he belongs, with Page 8 of 16 appropriate report on his conduct;
C) making recommendation to the competent authority, for taking disciplinary action, for any act of insubordination or dereliction of duty, while on election duty. Such recommendation shall be promptly acted upon by the disciplinary authority, and action taken will be communicated to the Election Commission; within a period of 6 months from the date of the Election Commission's recommendation.
d) the Government of India will advise the State Governments that they too should follow the above principles and decisions, since a large number of election officials are under their administrative control."
2. The implication of the disposal of the Writ Petition by the Supreme Court in terms of the above settlement is that the Election Commission can suspend any officer/official/police personnel working under the Central Government or Public Sector Undertaking or an autonomous body fully or substantially financed by the Government for insubordination or dereliction of duty and the Election Commission can also direct substituting any officer/official police personnel by another person besides making recommendations to the Competent Authority for taking disciplinary action for insubordination or dereliction of duty while engaged in the preparation of electoral rolls or election duty. It is also clarified that it is not necessary to amend the service rules for exercise or powers of suspension by the Election Commission in this case since these powers are derived from the provisions of section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act. 1950 and section 28A of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 since provisions of these Acts would have overriding effect over the disciplinary rules. However, in case there are any conflicting provisions in an Act governing the disciplinary action, the same are required to be amended suitably in accordance with the Terms of Settlement.
All Ministries Departments are requested to bring the above Terms of Settlement to the notice of all concerned for information and compliance.
(Smt. S. Bandopadhyay) Director To All Ministries Departments of the Government of India. Copy to:
1. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi.Page 9 of 16
2. Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi.
3. Central Vigilance Commission. New Delhi.
4. Central Bureau of Investigation. New Delhi.
5. All Union Territory Administrations.
6. Lok Sabha Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
7. The Chier Secretaries to all the State Governments
8. All Officers and Sections in the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions and MHA.
9. All Attached and Subordinate Offices of Ministry of Personnel. Public Grievances and Pensions & MHA."
19. The Election Commission of India Respondent No.3 was well within authority to relieve the applicant from election duties with immediate effect and to recommend disciplinary action against the applicant.
20. In the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Subrata Nath, Civil Appeal Nos.--of 2022 @ SLP (C) No. 3524 of 2022 dated 23rd November, 2022 [2022 SCC Online 1617], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"15. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere.
16. In the above context, following are the observations made by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) :
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the Page 10 of 16 authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel6 this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on Page 11 of 16 penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." [Emphasis laid]
17. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, a two Judge Bench of this Court held as below :
"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil). [Emphasis laid]
18. In Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, a two Judge Bench of this Court referred to several precedents on the Doctrine of Proportionality of the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and held that :
"21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be Page 12 of 16 invoked when the misconduct stands proved."
19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran held thus :
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;Page 13 of 16
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor.
21. In light of aforesaid principles of law, the facts of the case are being analyzed.
22. From the page 79 of the paper book, it is evident that on the complaint of Dr.Akansha Bhaskar, ADM ZP, Purulia dated 22.03.2021, the applicant was relieved from election duty with immediate effect and was directed to report back to his permanent cadre. Thus, it cannot be said that complaint made by Dr.Akansha Bhaskar is afterthought .
23. Five charges where framed against the applicant Charge number 1, 2, 3 and 5 were found not proved whereas Charge no.4 Page 14 of 16 was found partially proved. In the enquiry report findings of the enquiry officer about charge no.4 are as follows:-
"आरोप संख्या-4 के संबंध में परीक्षण एवं निष्कर्षः प्रश्नगत निकायतकताष के पत्र की प्रामानणकता एवं अन्तवषस्तु की वास्तनवकता पर आरोनपत अनधकारी द्वारा प्रश्न निह्न लगाया गया है , नकन्तु निकायतकताष द्वारा इस संबंध में जााँ ि दौराि पृच्छा नकए जािे पर पत्र नदए जािे को स्वीकार नकया गया है , अतएव उसकी प्रामानणकता स्वीकायष है जहााँ तक अन्तवषस्तु की वास्तनवकता का प्रश्न है . िंनक आरोनपत अनधकारी और निकायतकताष अनधकारी के मध्य संवाद दोिों के बीि का संव्यवहार है , नजसकी पुनि के नलए निकायतकताष के एकल साक्ष्य के अलावा नकसी नद्वतीयक साक्ष्य या साक्षी का बयाि निकायतकताष द्वारा उपलब्ध िहीं कराया गया है तथानप इतिा अवश्य है नक आरोनपत अनधकारी द्वारा एक तरफ निकायतकताष की प्रिंसा करते हुए उसे िोडल अनधकारी िानमत करिे की संस्तुनत / सुझाव दे िा और दसरी ओर निकायत को ई०वी०एम० कंट्र ोल यनिट् में खराबी पाये जािे की नजम्मेदारी से बििे हे तु नकए जािे की उल्लिल्लखत करिा नवरोधाभार्ी होिे के साथ-साथ आरोनपत अनधकारी की ल्लिनत को संदेहास्पद बिा दे ता है । निकायतकताष अनधकारी अपर नजलानधकारी के पद पर थीं. ऐसे में उिसे बार-बार उपल्लिनत की अपेक्षा करिा भी व्यवहाररक िहीं था. क्ोंनक उिके पास कई नवधािसभा क्षेत्रों का दानयत्व होिे से व्यस्तता रहती है । पररल्लितगत साक्ष्यों यथा- फोि पर बात करिा बाद में निकायतकताष द्वारा फोि िहीं उठािा, निकायतकताष के कनथत दानयत्वलोप की ल्लिनत में भी उसकी प्रिंर्ा करते हुए िोडल अनधकारी िानमत करिे की संस्तुनत दे िा, निकायतकताष द्वारा उसका प्रनतवाद करिा और कनथत संव्यवहार के आपनिजिक होिे की अन्ततः उच्च अनधकारी को नलल्लखत सििा दे िा से आपसी संवाद मयाष दापणष िहीं होिे का संकेत नमलता है । इसप्रकार आरोप सं ख्या-1 वास्तव में बातें क्ा हुई, िानपत िहीं होिे के बावजद अमयाष नदत आिरण होिे के संबंध में आं निक रूप से नसद्ध होता है ।"
24. From the aforesaid findings, it is not clear as to whether during enquiry complainant Dr. Akanksha Bhaskar appeared before the enquiry officer or not and as to whether the applicant was provided opportunity of cross examination or not. The applicant in his pleadings has specifically denied that complainant Dr.Akansha Bhaskar never appeared before the enquiry officer and applicant was not afforded an opportunity of cross examination.
In view of the above, it is evident that enquiry has not been conducted as per rules.
25. It is also pertinent to note that election commission was only Page 15 of 16 empowered for making recommendation to the competent authority for taking disciplinary action but disciplinary action has to be taken by following the procedure provided under the rules. As the complainant Dr.Akansha Bhaskar never appeared before the enquiry officer and the applicant was not provided an opportunity to cross examination, hence, it can be safely held that there is violation of principles of natural justice.
26. Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with law. The Enquiry Officer placed reliance on the complaint of Dr. Akansha Bhaskar with the presumption that it is a proved fact and it is a gospel truth and no further evidence is required regarding proof or disproof of the complaint.
In view of the above, the enquiry report is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.
27. In Union of India & Ors. v. Subrata Nath, Civil Appeal Nos.--of 2022 @ SLP (C) No. 3524 of 2022 dated 23rd November, 2022 [2022 SCC Online 1617], the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the judgment of Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran, wherein it has been specifically stated that Court or Tribunal can interfere if there is violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings. Applying the aforesaid law to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the complainant Dr.Akansha Bhaskar never appeared before the enquiry officer and the applicant was not provided the opportunity of cross- examination, it is apparent violation of principles of natural justice, hence, enquiry report submitted by enquiry officer and orders of stern warning and caution against the applicant are apparently illegal and erroneous and deserve to be quashed.
Page 16 of 1628. In view of the above, following orders are passed;
(i). Order dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure A-21) page 25-30 of the OA, whereby the applicant has been awarded stern warning and caution is quashed.
(ii). Order dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure A-25) page 31 of the OA is quashed.
(iii). Liberty is granted to the respondent/competent authority to conduct enquiry afresh against the applicant in accordance with law and as per rules. The said exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (J) Ak/-