The recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory, the Supreme Court (SC) reiterated in Satyendra Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh & Another.
The SC in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory.
When disciplinary proceedings involve allegations warranting a major penalty, it is the Inquiry Officer’s duty to record substantive evidence to support the charges brought against the government employee. Without such evidence, the proceedings fail to meet the procedural standards required for imposing significant penalties, the SC states.
Even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges.
The law as expounded by the SC in the cases of Roop Singh Negi v Punjab National Bank and Others and Nirmala J. Jhala v State of Gujarat and Another, the SC reiterated that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.
The appellant contended that no oral evidence or witnesses were presented during the inquiry, making the proceedings unlawful and findings irrational and violative of procedural requirements under Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which mandates recording of oral evidence in support of charges against Government servant when the inquiry being conducted proposes imposition of a major penalty.
References
