Holding that it was mandatory to communicate adverse notings in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a government employee before reliance could be placed on such a report, the Supreme Court in its recent decision in the matter of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand set to terms the law to this regard. Holding that reliance placed on an adverse comment in an ACR unless opportunity was given to the employee to explain the same led to vitiating the entire finding based on such ACR, the Supreme Court gave vital relief to the government employees.
The Bench declared the law in the following terms;
17. We shall first deal with the question whether consideration of the past adverse record of the appellant by the High Court had the effect of vitiating the ultimate order passed by the State Government. An exactly similar question was considered and answered in affirmative by the Constitution Bench in State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda (supra). The facts of that case were that while the respondent was holding the post of an Assistant to the Additional Development Commissioner, Planning, Bangalore, the Government of Mysore appointed Shri G.V.K. Rao (Additional Development Commissioner) to conduct a departmental enquiry against him in respect of the false claims for allowances and fabrication of vouchers. The Enquiry Officer framed four charges against the respondent. After holding an enquiry in accordance with relevant rules, the Enquiry Officer submitted report with the recommendation that the respondent might be reduced in rank. However, the government issued a notice to the respondent requiring him to show cause as to why he may not be dismissed from service. After considering his reply, the Government dismissed the respondent from service. The respondent challenged his dismissal by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court quashed the order of dismissal on several grounds including the one that the respondent had not been foretold about the proposed consideration of his past adverse record. This Court approved the view taken by the High Court and observed:
“Under Art.311(2) of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court, a Government servant must have a reasonable opportunity not only to prove that he is not guilty of the charges leveled against him, but also to establish that the punishment proposed to be imposed is either not called for or excessive. The said opportunity is to be a reasonable opportunity and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government servant must be told of the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action: see the decision of this Court in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, Civil Appeal No.832 of 1962 D/- 12-2-1963 : (AIR 1963 SC 1612). If the grounds are not given in the notice, it would be well nigh impossible for him to predicate what is operating on the mind of the authority concerned in proposing a particular punishment: he would not be in a position to explain why he does not deserve any punishment at all or that the punishment proposed is excessive. If the proposed punishment was mainly based upon the previous record of a government servant and that was not disclosed in the notice, it would mean that the main reason for the proposed punishment was withheld from the knowledge of the government servant. It would be no answer to suggest that every government servant must have had knowledge of the fact that his past record would necessarily be taken into consideration by the Government in inflicting punishment on him; nor would it be an adequate answer to say that he knew as a matter of fact that the earlier punishments were imposed on him or that he knew of his past record. This contention misses the real point, namely, that what the government servant is entitled to is not the knowledge of certain facts but the fact that those facts will be taken into consideration by the Government in inflicting punishment on him. It is not possible for him to know what period of his past record or what acts or omissions of his in a particular period would be considered. If that fact was brought to his notice, he might explain that he had no knowledge of the remarks of his superior officers, that he had adequate explanation to offer for the alleged remarks or that his conduct subsequent to the remarks had been exemplary or at any rate approved by the superior officers. Even if the authority concerned took into consideration only the facts for which he was punished, it would be open to him to put forward before the said authority many mitigating circumstances or some other explanation why those punishments were given to him or that subsequent to the punishments he had served to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned till the time of the present enquiry. He may have many other explanations. The point is not whether his explanation would be acceptable, but whether he has been given an opportunity to give his explanation. We cannot accept the doctrine of “presumptive knowledge” or that of “purposeless enquiry”, as their acceptance will be subversive of the principle of “reasonable opportunity”. We, therefore, hold that it is incumbent upon the authority to give the government servant at the second stage reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment and if the proposed punishment is also based on his previous punishments or his previous bad record, this should be included in the second notice so that he may be able to give an explanation.”
18. The proposition laid down in the above noted judgment represents one of the basic canons of justice that no one can be condemned unheard and no order prejudicially affecting any person can be passed by a public authority without affording him reasonable opportunity to defend himself or represent his cause. As a general rule, an authority entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or empowered to make an order which prejudicially affects the rights of any individual or visits him with civil consequences is duty bound to act in consonance with the basic rules of natural justice including the one that material sought to be used against the concerned person must be disclosed to him and he should be given an opportunity to explain his position. This unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision, which forms an integral part of the concept of rule of law. This right has its roots in the notion of fair procedure. It draws the attention of the authority concerned to the imperative necessity of not overlooking the cause which may be shown by the other side before coming to its decision. When it comes to taking of disciplinary action against a delinquent employee, the employer is not only required to make the employee aware of the specific imputations of misconduct but also disclose the material sought to be used against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of explaining his position or defending himself. If the employer uses some material adverse to the employee about which the latter is not given notice, the final decision gets vitiated on the ground of the violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Even if there are no statutory rules which regulate holding of disciplinary enquiry against a delinquent employee, the employer is duty bound to act in consonance with the rules of natural justice – Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation and another v. Vijay Narayan Bajpayee (1980) 3 SCC 459. However, every violation of the rules of natural justice may not be sufficient for invalidating the action taken by the competent authority/employer and the Court may refuse to interfere if it is convinced that such violation has not caused prejudice to the affected person/employee.
19. In Harish Chandra Singh’s case (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered a somewhat similar question in the backdrop of the fact that even though in the show cause notice, the competent authority had proposed dismissal of the respondent, after considering his reply, a lesser punishment i.e. removal from service was imposed upon him. The respondent in that case had joined Police Department in 1947. He was dismissed from service on 21.6.1951 but was reinstated in January, 1952. He was finally removed from service in 1956. In the year 1951 itself, punishment of reduction to the lowest scale of the post for a period of three years was imposed on the respondent. In 1955, his pay was reduced for a period of two years. In the course of service, the respondent had earned fifteen rewards and commendations. In the departmental inquiry which led to his removal from service in 1956, the respondent was found guilty of three charges of gross negligence in the performance of his duty of investigating the cases registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent. On appeal, Additional District Judge, Varanasi decreed the same. The High Court confirmed the appellate judgment and dismissed the second appeal preferred by the State by observing that the respondent had not been given opportunity to explain the past punishments which were considered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in arriving at his decision to remove the respondent from service. While considering the question whether it was necessary for the concerned authority to give notice to the respondent as a condition precedent for consideration of his past punishments, this Court referred to the factual matrix of the case and held that when the final punishment was lesser than the proposed punishment, consideration of the past adverse record was inconsequential. The Court referred to the arguments urged on behalf of the State and observed:
“The learned counsel for the State contends that on the facts of this case it is clear that the plaintiff had notice that his record would be taken into consideration because the Superintendent of Police had mentioned it towards the end of his order, a copy of which was supplied to the plaintiff. In the alternative he contends that if the record is taken into consideration for the purpose of imposing a lesser punishment and not for the purpose of increasing the quantum or nature of punishment, then it is not necessary that it should be stated in the show cause notice that his past record would be taken into consideration.
It seems to us that the learned counsel is right on both the points. The concluding para of the report of the Superintendent of Police, which we have set out above, clearly gave an indication to the plaintiff that his record would be considered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and we are unable to appreciate what more notice was required. There is also force in the second point urged by the learned counsel. In State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda (1964) 4 SCR 540 the facts were that the Government servant was misled by the show-cause notice issued by the Government, and but for the previous record of the Government servant the Government might not have imposed the penalty of dismissal on him. This is borne out by the following observations of Subba Rao, J., as he then was:
“In the present case the second show cause notice does not mention that the Government intended to take his previous punishments into consideration in proposing to dismiss him from service. On the contrary, the said notice put him on the wrong scent, for it told him that it was proposed to dismiss him from service as the charges proved against him were grave. But, a comparison of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order of dismissal shows that but for the previous record of the Government servant, the Government might not have imposed the penalty of dismissal on him and might have accepted the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and the Public Service Commission. This order, therefore, indicates that the show cause notice did not give the only reason which influenced the Government to dismiss the respondent from service.”
20. An analysis of the two judgments shows that while recommending or imposing punishment on an employee, who is found guilty of misconduct, the disciplinary/competent authority cannot consider his past adverse record or punishment without giving him an opportunity to explain his position and considering his explanation. However, such an opportunity is not required to be given if the final punishment is lesser than the proposed punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment