Suman Singh Yadav v. State Of M.P And Others

ORDER

This petition is directed against the punishment order Annexure-A/1, whereby punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is inflicted on the petitioner on 22/11/2000. Petitioner's first and second appeals against the said order were rejected. Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, wherein three allegations were made against him. Petitioner denied the charges and, therefore, an enquiry was instituted against him. One Y.K Pawar Dy. S.P (Radio) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer in his detailed report running in 19 pages opined that no charges are found proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority by impugned order disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued a show-cause notice dated 29/09/2000. In the said show-cause notice, punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was proposed against the petitioner. Thereafter, he received petitioner's reply and passed final order Annexure-A/1, which is impugned herein.

2. This is trite in law that Inquiry Officer is an agent of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority is not bound by the finding of the Inquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer provided the evidence on record permits him to do so. However, this is trite that while disagreeing with the findings and before proceedings further, disciplinary authority has to fulfill two requirements (1) he has to prepare “tentative reasons” for disagreement on the basis of findings on record. (2) provide those “tentative reasons” to the delinquent employee to enable him to prefer representation against the same. After fulfilling the aforesaid requirements and after considering the delinquent employee's representation, the disciplinary authority may record final finding and decide about the question of punishment. The aforesaid view is taken by Supreme Court in catena of judgments including (1998) 7 SCC 84 (Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra). The Apex court opined as under:-

“Whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiring authority on any article of charge then before it records its findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its finding will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favorable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

3. If the impugned order Annexure-A/1 is examined on the anvil of aforesaid legal requirements, it is crystal clear that the disciplinary authority has not prepared any tentative reasons. He arrived at a final conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to file representation only against the proposed punishment. This is clearly impermissible and runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and law laid down by the Apex Court in Kunj Behari Mishra (supra).

4. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be permitted to stand. Same is set aside. Consequently appellate orders founded upon Annexure-A/1 are set aside. Respondents are at liberty to proceed further by providing disagreement note.

5. I am conscious of the fact that this is 2001 matter, which was filed before the M.P State Administrative Tribunal, and Shri Gautam reported that petitioner has been retired long back, therefore, I deem it proper to direct that if respondents want to continue with the enquiry, they shall proceed and conclude the same within 06 months subject to petitioner's cooperation, failing which enquiry shall stand automatically abated.

6. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.