Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 606 (GAU)

Prasanna Kumar Phukan v. State of Assam

2005-08-22

RANJAN GOGOI

body2005
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Chaudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned Government advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 2. The punishment imposed on the petitioner by an order dated 19.2.2004 after a full-fledged departmental enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner by charge memo dated 18.6.2002, is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. After receipt of the charge memo dated 18.6.2002, the petitioner submitted his reply on 8.7.2002 and sought for permission to inspect certain documents. Permission was granted to the petitioner and thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled. The petitioner participated in the enquiry, in course of which oral and documentary evidence in support of the charges were adduced before the enquiry officer. At the end of the enquiry the enquiry officer submitted a report of the disciplinary authority, a copy of which was also made available to the writ petitioner. The petitioner was afforded another opportunity at that stage which was also availed of. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by order dated 19.2.2004 accepted the report of the enquiry officer and on the basis of the findings recorded therein, imposed the punishment of reduction of rank on the writ petitioner. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. It may be noticed at this stage that the writ petitioner, who was holding the post of Accountant at the relevant point of time, was reverted to the post of Accounts Assistant, a post lower in two stages, by the impugned order dated 19.2.2004. The only argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner by Shri A.S. Chaudhury, learned senior counsel is that a reading of the impugned order dated 19.2.2004 would go to indicate that the mandatory provisions of Rule 9(9) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) has not been followed in the present case. Placing the provisions of Rule 9(9) of the aforesaid Rules, Shri A.S. Chaudhury, learned senior counsel has contended that after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority is required to apply his mind to each article of charge levelled against the delinquent and on the basis of the record of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority is required to record his own finding on each of the charges. In the present case, by referring to the impugned order dated 19.2.2004, Shri Chaudhury has contended that the aforesaid mandatory exercise had not been performed by the disciplinary authority and in the impugned order dated 19.2.2004 the disciplinary authority has merely set out the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer and on that basis had imposed the punishment in question. The impugned order dated 19.2.2004, according to Shri Chaudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, does not indicate any independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority to the requirement of Rule 9(9) of the Rules and the disciplinary authority has not recorded its own findings in respect of any of the charges levelled against the petitioner. There being a clear violation of Rules 9(9) of the Rules, Shri Chaudhury has submitted that the punishment imposed would not be tenable in law and, therefore, the impugned order requires interference by this Court. 4. Shri H.K. Mahanta, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the official respondents has placed before the Court the provisions of Rule 9(9) of the Rules and has contended that in a situation where the disciplinary authority concurs with the findings of the enquiry officer, if such concurrence is recorded in the impugned order, it will not be necessary for the disciplinary authority once again to record separate findings in respect of each of the charges. The disciplinary authority after reciting the relevant facts indicating the manner in which the proceeding against the petitioner was conducted had gone to put on record the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of each of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter the disciplinary authority recorded the view that the charge levelled against the petitioner are serious ; that all the charges against the petitioner have been proved and that the punishment in question is required to be imposed on the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned punishment of reduction in rank has been imposed on the petitioner. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that in the facts of the present case, as noted above, there will be no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.2.2004. 5. Thereafter, the impugned punishment of reduction in rank has been imposed on the petitioner. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that in the facts of the present case, as noted above, there will be no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.2.2004. 5. The provisions of Rule 9(9) of the Rules undoubtedly require the disciplinary authority to independently apply its mind to the charges levelled against officer and consider the materials on the basis of the report of enquiry is submitted and thereafter to come to a conclusion as to whether the charges have been proved or not. Rule 9(9) of the Rules must be interpreted and understood by the Court in a reasonable and practicable manner. It is the core of the said Rule which requires an independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority to the charges levelled and a consideration of the materials brought on record in the course of the enquiry that the Court would insist upon. In the present case, the disciplinary authority after an elaborate consideration of the report of the enquiry officer, recorded in writing the findings of the enquiry in respect of each of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter the disciplinary authority on an examination of the report of enquiry took the view that all the charges are proved against the petitioner warranting the punishment, as has been imposed. In holding the charges against the writ petitioner to have been proved, which in the instant case, is in concurrence with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority cannot be expected to write out a detailed judgment, as Courts of law are required to. It will be sufficient if the order passed discloses a reasonable basis that there has been due and proper application of mind. Exercise of administrative powers, in consonance with the provisions of the Rules, must be required to be performed in a reasonable and pragmatic manner and no requirement should be put in exercise of such powers which may have the effect of creating obstructions in due discharge of administrative functions. A reading of the order dated 19.2.2004 impugned in the present case clearly reveals that the disciplinary authority had elaborately considered the nature of the charges levelled, the materials brought in course of the enquiry and the findings recorded before coming to the conclusion that all the charges are proved. A reading of the order dated 19.2.2004 impugned in the present case clearly reveals that the disciplinary authority had elaborately considered the nature of the charges levelled, the materials brought in course of the enquiry and the findings recorded before coming to the conclusion that all the charges are proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority has imposed the impugned punishment. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to cause any interference with the impugned order dated 19.2.2004. Consequently, writ application is dismissed, however, without any cost. Writ application dismissed