Raj Kumar vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide office order dated 25th October, 1999 (Annexure A-1). Inquiry officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. It is borne out from the record that the Petitioner has been exonerated by the inquiry officer. However, the Managing Director of the Respondent-Corporation as per Annexure R-1, dated 18.10.2003, disagreed with the report furnished by the inquiry officer, only on the ground that the inquiry officer has not taken into consideration the report of Shri B.R. Sood, the then General Manager (Technical) or examined him as a witness. Consequently, the Managing Director of the Respondent-Corporation has imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect as per office order dated 30th October, 2003. Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order dated 30th October, 2003. However, the same has not been decided till date.

Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that once the disciplinary authority has decided to disagree with the report of the inquiry officer, it was incumbent upon it to record its tentative reasons and thereafter to convey the same to enable his client to make a representation against the same. It was only thereafter, the disciplinary authority could proceed with the matter further.

Mr. H.S. Rawat, learned Counsel for the Respondent has justified the office order Annexure A-4, dated 30th October, 2003, whereby the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the Petitioner.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

What emerges from Annexure R-1, is that the Petitioner stood exonerated by the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority without recording its tentative reasons of disagreement with the inquiry report, has imposed the penalty upon the Petitioner vide Annexure A-4, dated 30.10.2003. This course was not open to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority was required to record the tentative reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report. Thereafter, the tentative reasons were required to be supplied to the Petitioner alongwith the copy of the inquiry report to enable him to make a representation. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the representation/reply furnished to the tentative reasons, could make up its final mind to impose the penalty.

Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, have held that the Disciplinary Authority must record its tentative reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report and thereafter the reasons are required to be supplied to the delinquent officer to represent against the same and only after receipt of the representation, the findings are to be recorded. Their Lordships have held as under:

The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7 (2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own 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 inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, 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 representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.

Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-4, dated 30.10.2003 is quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to the Respondent to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, as stated hereinabove and to conclude the proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the Petitioner. In case the Petitioner is exonerated, he will be entitled to all the consequential benefits including promotion from the due date. No costs.