Satbir Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Ashish Kalia, J

The reliefs claimed by the applicant are as under:-

"(a) To quash and set aside the order of imposition of punishment "Stoppage of next due one increments without cumulative effect" upon the Applicant on fake charges issued by respondent no.3, vide memo dated 25.10.2013.

(b) to quash the orders of rejection of appeals by Appellate Authority as well as rejection of the submission of the applicant as informed by the respondent no.3 vide memo dated 25.08.2014 and 18.11.2015 respectively;

(c) to direct the respondents to release all consequential benefits to the applicant;

(d) to pass other appropriate relief as per the facts and circumstances of the case."

The facts of the case are that the applicant joined as a Conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) in the year 10.6.1983. On 19.1.2010, the applicant while on duty as second conductor on duty No.347/27 got endorsed his tickets adversely in the way bill of first conductor batch No.13173 which were not according to the opening numbers of the way bill of the applicant.

It is further alleged against the applicant that he did not show he trip of BBM Depot and left the bus at ISBT but on perusal of ticket-sold by him uptill BBM Depot which is not possible and it has been concluded that applicant availed bogus line entry on 19.1.2010.

A chargesheet has been issued against the applicant on 24.4.2012 and applicant has submitted his reply to the said chargesheet on 1.10.2012 and ultimately Enquiry Officer was appointed and he has submitted his report where the Enquiry Officer has observed that the main charge that he had shown bogus duty on line dated 19.1.2010 is totally wrong but not mentioning the trip from ISBT to BBM Depot in his way bill is an administrative lapse. The defence witness Shri Surender Singh, ATI, has also deposed in favour of the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the enquiry report and issued show cause notice with proposed punishment for which applicant submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of stoppage of next due one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 25.10.2013. The applicant preferred an appeal on 27.11.2013. However, the Appellate Authority has rejected his appeal without passing any speaking order on 26.8.2014.

The notices were issued, respondent filed its reply and submitted therein that the departmental enquiry has been held against the applicant and on conclusion of the enquiry. Thereafter Disciplinary Authority has served a show cause notice. Thereafter reply was submitted by the applicant on 27.11.2013 which considered and rejected by the Disciplinary Authority and awarded the punishment of stoppage of next due one increment without cumulative effect upon the applicant vide order dated 25.10.2013.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the records and also appreciated the legal position.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, AIR 1998 SC 2713 observed as follows:-

"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 favorable 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 a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.

The aforesaid conclusion, which we have arrived at, is also in consonance with the underlying principle enunciated by this Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants (supra). While agreeing with the decision in Ram Kishan's case (supra), we are of the opinion that the contrary view expressed in S.S. Koshal and M.C. Saxena's cases (supra) do not lay down the correct law."

Recently, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has also decided a similar case (Writ-A No.23458 of 2006 - Balkesh Narayan Srivastava vs. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others decided on 24.7.2019) by placing reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra (supra) and observed as under:-

"Even if such exoneration is based on technical grounds or by granting him benefit of doubt, yet the enquiry report cannot be made the basis for passing an order of punishment against the petitioner, inasmuch as, there is no material available to hold the petitioner guilty. No doubt, it was open for the disciplinary authority to disagree with the conclusion of the enquiry officer, but in that event the disciplinary authority was expected to formulate the points of disagreement and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This course has not been followed. Once the enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled in disciplinary enquiry proceedings, no order of punishment could have been passed against him. It was not open for the disciplinary authority to rely upon some administrative enquiry report in which neither the petitioner was associated nor was it part of the disciplinary enquiry. The fact that no further enquiry has been conducted in the matter is clearly admitted in the letter of the Additional Director (Administration), dated 8.12.2006, whereby petitioner's representation has been rejected. For such reasons, the orders impugned cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed."

From the above, it is clear that Apex Court as clearly laid down that if disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority did not contain any specific ground on which the disciplinary authority proceeded or proceeding to disagree with the findings of the EO, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Rather in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority has already mentioned the proposed penalty in the show cause notice itself, which is contrary to the law. As per the verdict delivered by the Apex Court hereinabove, the Disciplinary Authority required to assign the reason(s) for such disagreement with the findings of enquiry report and that too on the basis of record. The Disciplinary Authority could not rely upon anything which is not part of the record. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority has failed to give any reason(s) whatsoever on the basis of material on record that applicant is guilty of the offence.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view the impugned orders of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities are not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of above discussion on law as Disciplinary Authority has failed to give reason for disagreement on what count he is not agreeing with enquiry report and applicant should have been given due opportunity to present his defence on disagreement note which has not been done. The appellate order is also passed in mechanical way by non-speaking order without dealing with grounds raised by the applicant for his defence.

Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 25.10.2013 and Appellate memo dated 25.8.2014 and order dated 18.11.2015 are hereby set-aside and remand back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass an order in accordance with law as hereinabove discussed after giving due opportunity to the applicant.

This IA is disposed of with above observations finally. There shall not be any order as to costs.