Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 15, 2024 set aside termination of a Class IV employee of a district court in Uttar Pradesh who allegedly made false allegations of bribery and caste discrimination and directly sending a representation to the Allahabad High Court and the Chief Minister without availing proper channel.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra ordered for reinstatement of appellant Chatrapal by setting aside the High Court's judgment dated April 30, 2007 after holding that the decision was arrived at on the basis of perverse finding in the inquiry.

"It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered," the bench said.

The court relied upon the SC judgments in cases of 'Union of India vs P Gunasekaran' (2015), 'State of Haryana vs Rattan Singh' (1977) and 'Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs TT Murali Babu' (2014) to come to its conclusion.

The appellant, posted in class IV category, was placed under suspension on June 21, 2003 and a departmental inquiry was initiated. 

He was served a charge sheet firstly he had used inappropriate, derogatory and objectionable language and made false allegations against the officers including the District Judge as well as against the Presiding Officer of Aonla Court and secondly, he sent letters and representations to the Registrar General of High Court and other officials of the State Government including the then Chief Minister without routing those through proper channel. 

After Inquiry Officer found the charges proved, the appellant was dismissed in 2007.

After hearing the counsel, the supreme court's bench said that the finding of making false statement of bribery and allegation of caste discrimination in his representation was not borne out from the record. 

"Since, this finding is the fulcrum of the reasoning to hold that charge number one is proved, in our considered view, this finding in the inquiry report is perverse," the bench said.

Insofar as the allegation that the appellant made false allegations of discrimination on caste basis, the bench said, "It is significant to notice that the appellant himself has not made any such allegation. In the said letter, he stated that it was the Central Nazir who told him that the District Judge is saying that the appellant is a Harijan employee, and he hates the people of such community."

With regard to second charge of directly sending the representations to the High Court and Chief Minister/Minister without routing it through proper channel, the bench said, "In this regard, it is suffice to observe that Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed". 

Even otherwise, the appellant has cited examples of other employees of the District Court, Bareilly who have sent representations directly to the superiors, but no action has been taken against them, the bench added. The court thus allowed the appeal and directed for his reinstating him with all consequential benefits.

Case Title: CHATRAPAL vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.