The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that once a disciplinary authority has taken a conscious decision on the basis of an enquiry report and let off an employee with a lenient punishment such as a warning, it cannot later review or reopen the matter on the same set of allegations unless the applicable service rules expressly confer such power of review. Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment while allowing two connected writ petitions filed by Ishfaq Ahmad Wani, a Special Assistant to the Chairman of the J&K Legislative Council, and quashed both the order imposing forfeiture of two annual increments and the subsequent decision to constitute a fresh enquiry committee.
The facts of the case, as recorded by the Court, are that in 2006 a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging that he had produced a fake matriculation date of birth certificate showing his date of birth as 28.03.1975 instead of the actual date of 28.03.1973. An enquiry was conducted and the committee recommended reversion to the next lower post. However, the competent authority, the Chairman of the Legislative Council, after considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s explanation, took a lenient view and decided to administer only a warning to be careful in future. The petitioner was directed to produce the correct date of birth certificate, which he duly furnished, and necessary corrections were made in the service record. In the meantime, the Government issued a circular granting general amnesty to employees who corrected their recorded date of birth, and the petitioner had already complied with the requirement before the cut-off date. The criminal case registered against him on the same allegations was also quashed by the High Court in 2014.
Despite the matter having been closed with a warning, a fresh complaint was entertained years later and a second enquiry was initiated under Rule 33 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. On the basis of the enquiry report, the competent authority passed the impugned order dated 15.09.2011 forfeiting two annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Later, during the pendency of the writ petition challenging the said order, yet another committee was constituted vide order dated 03.04.2013 to conduct a third enquiry on the identical allegations.
The High Court categorically held that the disciplinary authority’s earlier decision to administer only a warning attained finality and could not be reviewed or reopened by a successor authority. Relying upon established judicial precedents, the Court observed that proceedings in a departmental enquiry are quasi-judicial in nature. Once a decision is taken on the basis of an enquiry report, the same cannot be reviewed unless the rules expressly provide for such power. The Court noted that the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 do not vest any power of review in the disciplinary authority. Therefore, howsoever erroneous or lenient the earlier decision may have been, it could not be revisited at a later point of time.
The Court further held that even the second enquiry conducted by the respondents was vitiated on account of non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1956. There was nothing on record to show that a formal charge-sheet was framed or served upon the petitioner or that he was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. In view of these patent defects, the enquiry report and the consequential order of punishment were declared illegal.
The High Court concluded that subjecting an employee to repeated enquiries on identical facts would amount to harassment and is contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. Accordingly, both writ petitions were allowed. The order dated 15.09.2011 imposing the penalty of forfeiture of two annual increments with cumulative effect was quashed. The decision dated 03.04.2013 to constitute a third enquiry committee was also set aside. The record produced before the Court was directed to be returned to the respondents.
Case Title: Ishfaq Ahmad Wani v. Chairman Legislative Council & Ors.
Case Nos.: SWP No. 803/2013 with SWP No. 918/2012
Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 