Cried wolf, paid price: Delhi High Court backs HUDCO officer’s sacking over ‘false’ bribe allegations against seniors

“The gravamen (essence) of the charge framed against the petitioner was not of having invoked the criminal process per se, but of having made false imputations of demand of illegal gratification against senior officers of HUDCO, thereby attracting misconduct under the HUDCO (CDA) rules,” the Delhi High Court said in its April 1 order.

Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan noted that neither the complaint nor the supporting witness statements disclosed when and where the bribe was demanded.

‘No violation of principles of natural justice’

• The inquiry officer had observed that the petitioner’s non-participation “shows that he has no case to prove his innocence,” the court noted.
• Disapproving of this reasoning, the Delhi High Court held that such a view is not legally sound, clarifying that non-participation may justify an ex parte inquiry but cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of guilt.
• The court observed that the allegation of demand lacked material particulars, since neither the complaint nor the supporting witness statements disclosed with clarity when, where, and before whom the amount was demanded as a bribe.
• The charge memorandum of the corporation cannot be said to be incompetent in law merely because it arose out of a complaint made by the petitioner to the criminal court and the police.
• The petitioner failed to establish a violation of principles of natural justice, absence of an evidentiary basis, or perversity in the disciplinary or appellate process that would justify the Delhi High Court’s interference with the dismissal order.

Appointed in 1990, dismissed in 2011

The petitioner was appointed as a law officer at HUDCO in January 1990. In the late 1990s, criminal proceedings were registered against him based on two complaints made by his wife, leading to his arrest and suspension from service.

The suspension remained in force from September 1997 to February 2009. He was thereafter reinstated and posted to the HUDCO Jaipur regional office, where he joined with effect from April 2009. Upon rejoining service, disputes arose regarding the treatment of the suspension period and the release of arrears of pay and increments related to it.

It was in the course of this dispute that he levelled allegations that senior officers of HUDCO had demanded illegal gratification for the release of his annual increments and other service-related benefits. While posted at Jaipur, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the sessions court, alleging demand of illegal gratification of Rs 1 lakh each for the release of his annual increments and other service-related benefits, and that, upon refusal, he was harassed through the issuance of memos.

However, the trial court, by an order of July 2010, observed that the complaint did not specify when, where, or before whom the alleged demand for a bribe was made, and that the grievance regarding pay increments and service benefits was, in substance, a departmental matter.

‘Misconduct’

Subsequently, the corporation issued the memorandum of charge in October 2010 to the petitioner, alleging that he had lodged a false complaint imputing demand of illegal gratification to the senior HUDCO officers , and had thereby committed misconduct.

He replied to the charges, and meanwhile, approached the tribunal, challenging the October 2010 memorandum of charge issued by the corporation. During the pendency of the said proceedings, he was transferred from the Jaipur regional office to the Guwahati regional office in February 2011.

During the inquiry, notices of hearing were issued to the petitioner through registered post at the addresses available on record. It was placed on record that the notice of the proceedings was also published on the official website of HUDCO as well as in national newspapers, The Indian Express and Dainik Jagran.

The petitioner, however, did not participate in the inquiry proceedings and based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service by order of September 2011.

‘Transfer unrelated to proceedings’

Appearing for HUDCO, advocate Sonal Kumar Singh argued that the charge cannot be said to be incompetent in law, since the allegation was not of mere resort to the criminal process, but of making false imputations of corruption against senior officers of the corporation.

Singh also added that repeated notices of hearing were issued to the petitioner and were also published on the official website of HUDCO and in newspapers, yet he chose not to participate in the inquiry.

The petitioner had been paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and salary after reinstatement till his transfer, and no salary was payable thereafter since he did not join the office in Guwahati, Singh said. He also argued that the transfer was routine, bore no nexus to the disciplinary proceedings, and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner did not warrant interference.

‘Grossly disproportionate’

The law officer, appearing for himself, argued that the very foundation of the disciplinary proceedings is flawed, since the criminal proceedings had culminated in a closure report of the police treating the matter as one of civil nature and not in any finding that the First Information Report (FIR) was false.

He added that the inquiry stood vitiated for want of an effective opportunity, particularly in the backdrop of his transfer to Guwahati during the pendency of the inquiry. He also pointed out that the appellate authority failed to deal with his grounds in accordance with the law, and that the penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate.