Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 4: High Court while quashing the punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments imposed upon an employee held that once the decision taken on misconduct in service records, the authority can’t review it by holding another enquiry.
The petitioner-Ishfaq Ahmad Wani challenged a Government order whereby his two annual increments were forfeited and the order whereby a committee was constituted for holding an enquiry against for submitting a fake date of birth certificate.
“…both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order of punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner is quashed. Further the decision of the respondents to hold a third enquiry by constituting a committee of officers in terms of impugned communication is also quashed”, the order issued by Justice Sanjay Dhar read.
Wani working as Special Assistant to Chairman, J&K Legislative Council, was in first enquiry warned with regard to producing a fake date of birth certificate at the time of his initial appointment and was directed to furnish the correct date of birth certificate and the case was closed with a recommendation that he should be reverted to his next lower post.
However, another complaint was filed against him on the basis of the same allegations and an order was issued whereby a recommendation was made for taking action against the petitioner for submitting a fake matriculation certificate. This order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition.
During the pendency of the writ petition, a fresh enquiry was initiated against the petitioner whereafter a report was submitted to the competent authority wherein it was recommended that no action could be taken against the petitioner but at the same time, the Committee recommended the stoppage of annual increments of the petitioner till the conclusion of criminal case against him.
Aggrieved of the said action he challenged the order on the grounds that once the competent authority had decided to close his case, it was not open to the respondents to re-open the case on the basis of same allegations.
Justice Dhar set aside the punishment order and said the authority has no power to review its own decision unless the rules provide for the same.
The court said that a disciplinary authority, while taking a decision on the basis of the enquiry report submitted before it, acts as a quasi judicial authority. “Therefore, unless the Rules of 1956 vest power to review with the disciplinary authority, the decision taken by the said authority cannot be reviewed”, reads the judgment.
The court said the person, who replaced the disciplinary authority, had no power to review the decision taken by his predecessor.
The court said that while holding the second inquiry, which the respondents claim to have conducted in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules of 1956, the procedure prescribed in the said rule has not been followed by the respondents.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
