Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner by merely putting allegations of irregularity in disciplinary proceedings cannot escape his responsibility to show that prejudice has been caused to him by the same.

What was the Background of Mohd. Asgar Ali v. Union of India Through Home Secy. and others case?

• The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in CISF on 12^th April 1987.
• In 1996 he was on election duty and the allegation was that petitioner was assigned to be on duty at Quarter Guard and from 9.00pm to 5.00am. Hawaldar Major checked the Quarter Guard around 2.00am and petitioner was not present there and found sleeping with rifle on his side in his room No. 22.
• He was placed under suspension and served with a charge sheet.
• One, Mr. I.P Singh, Inspector, was appointed as Inquiry Officer.
• However, the petitioner requested the higher authority to change an inquiry officer. The petitioner alleging the inquiry officer to be biased.
• His request to change inquiry officer was rejected and he participated in the enquiry proceedings.
• Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded, and a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to him. And giving him an opportunity to give his explanation.
• The explanation did not favor him, and he was punished by removal from his service in 1996.
• He filed an appeal against the said order which was rejected by the appellate authority in 1997. Against the said appellate order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was also rejected in 1998.
• The present appeal was filed before the High Court and petitioner challenging all these three impugned orders.
• Two main contention of the petitioner was that:
  • The petitioner has sent representations to the higher authorities for change in the inquiry officer on the ground that he is biased, but the same was not allowed.
  • The opportunity to defend was not adequately provided to the petitioner as documents were not supplied to him.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The High Court held that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings as well as cross-examined seven departmental witnesses and relied on several documents during the departmental proceedings. There had been no report of biasness by the petitioner during the said proceedings.
• Prejudice de facto should not be based on a mere apprehension or even on a reasonable suspicion. This Court finds no basis for any bias or prejudice in the appointment of the inquiry officer in the enquiry proceedings.
• Regarding the second contention, the court stated that the petitioner, during the inquiry has admitted that he had received all documents and was also allowed inspection of all records.
• The contention of the petitioner relating to non-supply of documents, without any specific enumeration, is devoid of merits and as such, the petitioner's present ground fails.
• There is absolutely no ground nor any iota of mention as to how the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner.

What are the Landmark Judgments Cited in this Case?

• B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others, (1995):
  • 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.
  • The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held that 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.
• Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993):
  • The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights.
  • They are neither incantation to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all sundry occasions.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

Rule 7-A of the Central Industrial Security Rules, 1969:

• This Section deals with the duties of Deputy Commandant. It states that-

(1) The Deputy Commandant shall assist the Commandant in the discharge of his duties; and where he is placed as head of the unit, he shall discharge all the duties of a Commandant and shall exercise only those financial powers that are delegated to him under the relevant rules.

(2) The Deputy Commandant shall be responsible for the efficiency, discipline, and morale of the personnel under him and shall also be responsible for the security of the undertaking or its part entrusted to him.

Section 9(3) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968:

• This Section deals with the appeal and revision. It states that the Central Government may call for and examine the record of any proceeding [under section 8, 8, sub-section (2), sub-section (2A) or sub-section (2B) of this section and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.
• Provided that no order imposing an enhanced penalty under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall be made unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the person affected by such order.