Published on: November 22, 2023 at 09:10 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Union of India V. Dilip Paul (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has set “Test of Prejudice” is when an action is taken against an employee without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to put forth his explanation. It is held that Prejudice can vitiate the enquiry held or order passed when — “no notice”, “no opportunity” and “no hearing” was provided by the authority to the person. It is held that the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively.
63. The obligation on the part of the Authority to ask the delinquent whether he pleaded guilty or had any defence to make is only in the circumstances, if the delinquent had not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or had not submitted any written statement of defence. Indisputably, in the case on hand, the respondent had filed his written statement of defence dealing with all allegations on the ten points framed for determination that were enquired into by the Committee and also cross-examined all the witnesses on the same.
67. Applying the aforesaid dictum as laid by this Court no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the respondent even if we believe that he was not asked to plead guilty to the second complaint. Had the respondent been asked if he pleaded guilty to the allegations levelled in the second complaint, then in such circumstances, whether the result would have been any different? The answer to this has to be an emphatic “No”. We say so because the respondent had denied all the ten charges which were framed against him. In other words, the respondent answered to all the ten points by way of his written statement of defence and even had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on each of the charges.
68. We are of the view that the High Court completely failed to advert itself to the principles laid down by this Court as aforesaid, and mechanically proceeded to set-aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that there was nothing to indicate that the respondent was asked whether he pleaded guilty to the charges imputed in the second complaint without applying the principle of “test of prejudice”.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
