Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 32 (HP)

ISHWAR SINGH AZAD v. STATE OF H. P.

2007-02-28

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR, VIJAY PAL SINGH

body2007
JUDGEMENT Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman:- This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 and the applicant has sought the following reliefs:- "(i) That the impugned order dated 16.7.2004 at Annexure-A-9 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. (ii) That if during the pendency of Original Application any interruption is caused in the services of applicant due to impugned order, then applicant may be held entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to produce records pertaining to this case before this Honble Tribunal. (iv) Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted." 2. Through this application, the applicant is impugning the action of respondent contained in impugned order dated 16.7.2004 contained in Annexure-A-9, where he has been compulsory retired as a measure of penal action against him and further a sum of Rs. 4,01,515/- has been ordered to be recovered from him. He is-thus praying for quashing of the said impugned order with further consequential benefits including re-instatement in service. 3. The case as laid down by the applicant is that he joined service in respondent department as a Agriculture Inspector on 25.10.1972. In the year, 1981 he joined on deputation with H.P. Agro Industries Corporation as Manager (Pesticide). He was promoted in the 1983 as a Market Manager (pesticides) and was absorbed In the said Corporation. However, he was repatriated in the year, 1984. 4. The applicant was issued a charge sheet on 6.7.1998 vide Annexure-A-2 which was replied by him on 20.7.1998 (Annexure-A-3). The applicant also remained under suspension from 13.6.t997 (A-1) to 10.3.2000 (A-3 A). 5. On conclusion of inquiry, the applicant was supplied with the inquiry report on 21.12.2002 (Annexure-A-5). The disciplinary authority recorded its disagreement with the findings of Inquiry Officer as are evident from Annexure-A-6. A representation to show cause notice was issued by the applicant Annexure-A-7 followed by another representation Annexure-A-8. 6. The applicant has challenged the impugned action of the respondent department mainly on the ground that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated him and disciplinary authority did not apply its mind while disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer inasmuch as the copy of Inquiry report was sent to H.P. Agro industries Corporation for its comments which were made basis for disagreement. 6. The applicant has challenged the impugned action of the respondent department mainly on the ground that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated him and disciplinary authority did not apply its mind while disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer inasmuch as the copy of Inquiry report was sent to H.P. Agro industries Corporation for its comments which were made basis for disagreement. The said comments were never made available to the applicant. 7. In the reply filed by respondent department it has been averred that the Original Application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., H.P. Agro Industries Corporation, where the applicant has committed the acts of commission and omission. The applicant has not availed the statutory remedy. On merits, it has been averred that the applicant while functioning as Marketing Manager (Pesticides) in H.P. Agro Industries Limited Shimla between 1981 to 1994 committed various acts which included grave financial irregularities. It is stated that the then Secretary (Agriculture) sought comments on the inquiry report from the Managing Director, H.P. Agro -Industries. Corporation and after consideration of comments the findings of Inquiry Officer, the then disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of Inquiry Officer and came to a prima facie conclusion that the delinquent Officer is guilty of charges. Therefore, in pursuant to Rule 15 of CCS. (CCA) Rules, the disciplinary authority forwarded the inquiry report together with his tentative reasons for disagreement and called for the representation of the delinquent officer within 15 days. In compliance to Rule 15 (2), the disciplinary authority had issued 15 days notice affording an opportunity to the charged officer to make representation. The disciplinary authority after compliance with the statutory procedure took conscious decision to impose penalty. Even H.P. Public Service Commission as consulted and thereafter the opinion of Law Department was sought and thereafter action has been taken. So far as recoveries concerned, the applicant has committed bungling exceeding the amount of Rs. 25.0 lacs. 8. The arguments of learned counsel for their respective parties have been heard at length as well the pleadings and record summoned have been perused carefully. 9. Admittedly, the applicant has been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, all the charges. It is also admitted by the respondents in their reply that on receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has sought for comments from the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation. 9. Admittedly, the applicant has been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, all the charges. It is also admitted by the respondents in their reply that on receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has sought for comments from the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation. The comments so supplied by the said Corporation have been taken into consideration. Such a procedure adopted by the respondent department is un-called for and not provided for especially in the rules. As such, taking into consideration of such a material, amounts to taking note of extraneous materials by the disciplinary authority and that too without affording an opportunity to the applicant to have his say about such comments supplied by the Corporation. As such it is not only indicative of non-application of mind on the part of disciplinary authority, but also vitiated the whole process. 10. Non-application of mind on the part of disciplinary authority is not writ large on the face of the order itself in above factual as well as legal backdrop. The - impugned order is unsupported by reasons as such not sustainable in the eye of law. Though the disciplinary authority has decided in its order that "the disciplinary authority has minutely examined the inquiry report alongwith the comments thereupon and is of the opinion that the findings are not based upon sound reasoning and correct appreciation of facts and documents brought out before the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry officer on account of reason adduced above." Strangely, on perusal of record, no reason worth the name has been found forming the -basis of disagreement. The Honble Apex Court in case titled as A.L. Kalra vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. Reported in 1984 (2) SLJ 82 has held that:- "29. The situation is further compounded by the fact that the disciplinary authority which is none other than Committee of Management of the Corporation while accepting the report of the inquiry officer which itself was defective did not assign any reasons for accepting the repot of the inquiry officer. After reproducing the findings of the inquiry officer, it is stated that the Committee of Management agrees with the same. After reproducing the findings of the inquiry officer, it is stated that the Committee of Management agrees with the same. It is even difficult to make out how the Committee of Management agreed with the observations of the inquiry officer because at one stage while recapitulating the evidence the inquiry officer unmistakably observed that appellant was subjected to double punishment and at other place, it is observed that granting extension of time and acceptance of documents and balance advance would tantamount to extending the time which would make the affair look wholly innocuous. This show utter non-application of mind of the Disciplinary Authority and the order is vitiated." 11. The maintainability of the present OA is also questioned on the ground that applicant has not availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. A perusal of impugned order dated 16.7.2004, Annexure A-9 with the OA, would reveal that the same has been passed by the Honble Governor of HP. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: - "Now, therefore, the Governor of HP is pleased to impose the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service alongwith recovery of Rs. 4.01,515/- only upon the delinquent officer." 12. As per Rule 22 of CCS (CCA) Rules, which are applicable to the employees of State of HP also, no appeal has been provided from the order made by the President. The relevant part of the rule reads as under:- "22. Orders against which no appeal lies. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part, no appeal shall lie against- (i) Any order made by the President, (ii) XXX (iii) XXX" 13. As per HP Government FD, OM No. Fin-(C)-A-(3)-1/81 dated 28.4.1987 it has been stated that certain Central Rules have been adopted by the State Government after 25.1.1971 and that these Rules have been framed by the Government of India, and that certain term such as "President"., "Government" etc. appears in these Rules in relation to their application to Central Government Department / Ministries / Employees and that in so far as the application of these Rules to departments / employees of the Government of HP are concerned, the above said words shall be deemed to have the meaning assigned to them in the said letter. Under this letter the word "President" has been deemed to mean "Governor, H.P". Under this letter the word "President" has been deemed to mean "Governor, H.P". This letter appears at page 3 in Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, corrected upto 31.5.99, by S.K. Duggal. Thus, it is clear that as per Rule 22 (i), no appeal has been provided against the order of Governor of HP. Thus, this objection is also not maintainable. 14. The applicant has also assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same is based on no evidence and is perverse. 15. In impugned order dated 23.6.2004, at page 117 of the OA, the disciplinary authority has held that:- "Articles of charge-l (in part): Article of Charge-Ill and Article of Charge-V, stand proven in respect of the following parameters:- Sh. I.S. Azad was prone to taking decisions at his level, by passing the top management and exceeded his authority several times. Details of the instances have already been spelled out." 16. The above said finding is without there being any specific charge to that effect and hence legally unsustainable. In the above said order it is further observed that:- ; "Sh. I.S. Azads work was shoddy, arbitrary and adhoc. Consequently, transitions rarely achieved satisfactory closure. Accounts were also as a result rarely finalised. Thus, deals of 1989-90 were satisfactorily settled after 5 to 10 years later. Some remain unresolved until the date of filing of the inquiry report." 17. The above said finding also appears to be vague and perverse without any corroborative evidence. 18. That in para 6.8.36 the applicant has averred that total turn over. Gross profit and net profit earned by the Pesticides Division during the working of applicant therein till December, 1989 are indicated in the noting at Annexure A-16, which clearly shows that during the tenure of applicants working as MMP, Pesticides Division was earning net profit in every financial year till December 1989. Gross profit and net profit earned by the Pesticides Division during the working of applicant therein till December, 1989 are indicated in the noting at Annexure A-16, which clearly shows that during the tenure of applicants working as MMP, Pesticides Division was earning net profit in every financial year till December 1989. In reply to this para it has been stated in para 6.8.36 of the reply that "the matter is irrelevant and needs no comments." A perusal of A-16, would show that same is a noting of the HP Agro Industries Corporation wherein the facts and figures with respect to the working of applicant from 1986-87 onwards were given, which may be reproduced at this stage:- "Year Pesticides Division, Shimla Total turn over Gross Profit Net Profit 1986-97 95 Lacs 6.65 Lacs +0.97 Lacs 1987-98 172 Lacs 7.23 Lacs +3.00 lacs 1988-89 405 Lacs 14.67 Lacs +9.16 Lacs. 1989-90 499 Lacs 14.79 Lacs +11.22 Lacs *After relieving Sh. Azad on 14.12.89, the total transaction/sale remained confined to 2.00 lacs and rest of the achievement made by Sh. Azads contribution only. 1990-91 51 Lacs 10/98 Lacs (-)5.38 Lacs (Loss) 1991-92 (Upto 31.7.91 sale of Rs. 8774.25 only against expenses incurred Rs.1,70,917.44. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that during 88-89 (Oct. 1988 to Dec. 1989) Sh. Azad was given the additional charge of Pesticides Plant, Parwanoo and the achievements of production of Marketing Division remained quite encouraging as compared to the previous as per detail given below:- Year Production Job work if any Done in the plant. 1986-87 39 Lacs Nil 1987-88 81 Lacs Nil 1987-88 82 lacs 80 M.T. the achievement 1989-90 62 Lacs 10M.T. is for the plant 1990-91 33.00 lacs Was given under the charge of Sh. Azad upto 14.12.89 and thereafter except B.H.C. no formulation was made. 20. From, the figures and facts stated above and if need be may be got verified from the Pesticides Division. It is evident that the Pesticides Division of the Corporation wile headed by Sh. Azad gave optimum profit upto Rs.. 11.00 lacs during 1989-90 within a period of 8 months contribution made by Sh. Azad and now the position is quite miserable that this division during 1990-91 is in loss, to the tune of Rs. It is evident that the Pesticides Division of the Corporation wile headed by Sh. Azad gave optimum profit upto Rs.. 11.00 lacs during 1989-90 within a period of 8 months contribution made by Sh. Azad and now the position is quite miserable that this division during 1990-91 is in loss, to the tune of Rs. 5.38 lacs and the total turn over was reduced from 499 lacs to 51.00 lacs which itself speak the functioning of the division after the transfer of Sh. I.S. Azad which may be perused by the authority from the relevant documents available in the concerned division." 21. The H6nble Apex Court in PNB vs. Kunj Bihari Misra reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84 has observed that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any other article of charge, then before it record its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer and opportunity to represent before it records it findings. 22. In (2000) 1 SCC 416, High Court of judicature at Bombay Vs. Shahikant S Patil & another deals with a situation where the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of inquiry officer and Honble Supreme Court held that final decision rests with the disciplinary / punishing authority which can come to its own conclusions, bearing in mind the views expressed by inquiry officer. This proposition of law is not in dispute. However, in the present case the challenge to impugned order is on the ground of findings being without evidence to support the same, being based on misreading of evidence and also being perverse, the above said proposition of law does not help the respondents. On the contrary Honble Supreme Court has reiterated in this judgment that judicial interference is permissible in case of violation of natural justice or statutory regulations or when the decision is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case or if the conclusion is on the very face of it wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person can arrive at such a conclusion. The case of the applicant is that the present case falls within the purview of 2nd proposition of law referred to in head note B of the judgment (supra), which according to applicant applies to his case. 23. The case of the applicant is that the present case falls within the purview of 2nd proposition of law referred to in head note B of the judgment (supra), which according to applicant applies to his case. 23. The second judgment relied by the State is Union of India Vs. BC Chatruvide (1995)6 749. In this judgment Honble Supreme Court has held that where the findings of disciplinary authority / appellate authority are based on some evidence, court / tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. This proposition is also not in dispute, but does not apply to the facts of present case. 24. The State relied on Head note A of the third judgment cited by the State i.e. (1996) 3 SCC 364, titled as State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that in case of even violation of natural justice, if no produce is caused to the aggrieved party, no interference would be called for. This judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 25. In (2002) 10 SCC 471, Union of India VS. K.D. Pandey, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has observed in para 5:- "In fact, from the order made by the Railway Board as well as from that, part of the file where the inquiry report made earlier is discussed, it is clear that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges after discussing the matter and, if that is so, we feel to understand as to how their could have been a remit to the inquiry authority to the further inquiry. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not in a further inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. If this process is allowed the inquiries can go on perpetually until the view of the inquiry authority is in accordance with the disciplinary authority and it would be abuse of the process of law. In that view of the matter we think that the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, we declined to interfere with the same." 26. In that view of the matter we think that the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, we declined to interfere with the same." 26. In (2002) 7 SCC 142, in para 7 of the judgment Honble Supreme Court observed that sufficiency of evidence postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged official with alleged misconduct and that mere observations such as in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence, would not satisfy the principle of sufficiency of evidence. 27. In (2001) 1 SCC 65, titled Union of India Versus K A Kittu, Honble Supreme Court held that while exercising powers of judicial review, administrative tribunal may examine / consider contradictory findings of the inquiry officer, findings based on no evidence and also instances where there are no clear findings. 28. In AIR 1972 SC 1031, Delhi Cloth Mills Vs. Ludh Budh Singh in para 38, the Honble Supreme Court observed that:- "Therefore, a finding recorded by an inquiry officer ignoring the material admissions made by a party in favour of an accused, is not a question of mere appreciation of evidence, but really recording a finding contrary to the evidence adduced before him." 29. On merits the first ground of attack of the applicant is that he was exonerated of the charges by the inquiry Officer as per Inquiry Report at Annexure A-5 and that the impugned order has been passed by the disciplinary authority without affording an opportunity to the application to submit his representations against such tentative reasons of disagreement. This ground has been raised by him in para 6.8.1 of the OA. In para 3 of the preliminary submissions made by respondent No.1 it has been stated that :- "The Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 28.3.2001. The then Secretary (Agriculture) sought comments on the inquiry Report from the Managing Director of HP Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and after consideration of the comments and findings of Inquiry Officer, the then Disciplinary Authority i.e. Secretary (Agriculture) disagreed with the findings of Inquiry Officer came to a prima-facie conclusion that the delinquent office is a guilty of the charges. Therefore, in pursuance of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the Disciplinary authority forwarded the Inquiry Report together with his tentative reasons for disagreement and called for the representation of the delinquent officer within 15 days. Therefore, in pursuance of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the Disciplinary authority forwarded the Inquiry Report together with his tentative reasons for disagreement and called for the representation of the delinquent officer within 15 days. As per CCS (CCA) Rules 15(2) days notice affording an opportunity to the charged officer to make a representation. A copy of the Inquiry Report alongwith orders of the Disciplinary Authority was sent to the applicant. The applicant denied all the charges. After examining the reply of the applicant the Disciplinary Authority after taking a conscious decision has proposed imposition of penalty, the matter was further processed and sent to the Public Service Commission for their approval and the Public Service Commission intimated to this department that the provision under Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was not observed by the Disciplinary Authority by not giving the specific reasons for the disagreement in respect of each articles of charge. Hence, the proposal was not approved and the same was returned back by the Commission merely because the reasons for disagreement had not been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. The none approval was in fact not an illegality but an irregularity which has crept in the order. The provisions of Rule 15 CSS (CCA) Rules had been complied in letter and spirit before the issuance of order of punishment. In view of the observation made by the Commission, the matter was taken up with the law department to seek their advise whether taking a fresh view in this in this case is legally tenable and sound, particularly since a new incumbent was in place as Secretary (Agriculture) i.e. the Disciplinary Authority in this instant case. The law department advised that as per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 1898, it is settled general principle that where illegality is found vitiating the action, the authority who has conducted the proceedings can conduct the proceedings afresh from the stage at which illegality is found vitiating the action. On the advise of Law Department the respondent No.1 after following the procedure laid down under Rule 15 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and independent application of mind has recorded reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report. Since, earlier the reasons had not been recorded the Disciplinary Authority after recording reasons passed an order dated 23.6.2004." 30. On the advise of Law Department the respondent No.1 after following the procedure laid down under Rule 15 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and independent application of mind has recorded reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report. Since, earlier the reasons had not been recorded the Disciplinary Authority after recording reasons passed an order dated 23.6.2004." 30. Coming back to the facts of present case, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant has argued that applicant was conveyed memorandum dated 21.12.2002 at Annexure A-4 with the OA, issued by Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of HP, wherein it has been observed in second para that "therefore, the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Inquiry Officer on account of the reasons adduced above.", and that alongwith the said memorandum a copy of Inquiry Report at Annexure A-6, were also conveyed to the applicant. It has been asserted on behalf of the applicant that apart from alleged reasons of disagreement at Annexure A-6, no other reasons were ever communicated to applicant by the department and that Annexure A-6 do not contain the alleged reasons of disagreement recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, but afe only verbatim reproduction of the comments offered by Managing Director of the HP Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. which were solicited by respondent department as per their own admission in para 3 of their reply. The applicant has also stated in para 6.6. of his OA that "the Disciplinary Authority recorded its alleged disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and alleged reasons for disagreement are Annexure A-6 herewith." The contents of para 6.6. of the OA have been admitted by respondent No.1 in its reply. In order dated 23.5.2004, which was forwarded to applicant vide order dated 16.7.2004, Annexure A-9, it has been stated in first part of the said order that "the inquiry officer submitted his report on 28.3.2001. On receipt of inquiry report, the then Secretary (Agriculture) sought comments on the inquiry report from the M.D. HP Agro Industries Corporation. On receipt of these comments, the then Secretary (Agriculture) as disciplinary authority passed orders indicating his disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and held the delinquent official guilty of the charges. He further ordered, "before a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service alongwith recoveries mentioned hereto fore is imposed, a notice as per the Rules be served upon him." Sh. He further ordered, "before a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service alongwith recoveries mentioned hereto fore is imposed, a notice as per the Rules be served upon him." Sh. I.S. Azad was sent a copy of the inquiry report alongwith a copy of the orders of disciplinary authority." Thereafter, in 3 part of this order it has been stated that" I am satisfied about the procedure having been followed by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Report was also circulated to Sh. I.S. Azad, by the A.D. though after obtaining comments on the same from HPAIC. However, Sh. I.S. Azad, (on perusal of the record on the file was not made available these comments and was given only the inquiry report which is as per procedure)." 31. From the above facts it is clear that the applicant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the inquiry report. In these circumstances before recording findings contrary to the findings in inquiry report, the disciplinary authority should have recorded its tentative reasons of disagreement and supplied the same to the applicant alongwith a copy of inquiry report to enable him to make his representation against the same. Whoever, the record of the case reveals that not to talk of supplying such reasons for disagreement to the applicant, no reasons for disagreement were ever recorded by the disciplinary authority before passing the impugned order. On the contrary the inquiry report was forwarded to HP Agro Industries Corporation for comments and the comments received from M.D. HP Agro Industries corporation at page 295 of the file produced by the department during the course of hearing. These reasons are the same as conveyed to the applicant alongwith order dated 21.12.2002 at Annexure A-4 and placed on record with the OA as Annexure A-6. However, the said comments are not even signed by any authority of the department. When the counsel for the State was confronted with this situation, he relied, on a judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 5 SCC 388, head note B and argued that the comments received from HP Agro Industries Corporation was an internal matter of the State and said corporation and that applicant cannot assail the impugned order on the basis of such comments. But, the specific averments made by the applicant in para 6.6 of the OA that the alleged reasons for disagreement are Annexure A-6 have not been denied in para 6.6. of the reply of the State. Thus, it is clear that respondent department instead of applying its independent mind to the inquiry report, preferred to invite comments on the same from HP Agro Industries Corporation, which was not permissible in law. Therefore, the impugned reasons for disagreement at Annexure A-6 are liable to be ignored in totality. 32. When the State was specifically asked to produce the reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, the Ld. Counsel for the State referred to order dated 23.6.2004 and argued that in the said order the reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report were recorded, However, a perusal of order dated 23.6.2004 shows that the same is the final order holding the applicant guilty which was served on applicant alongwith order dated 16.7.2004, Annexure A-9. It has been stated in order dated 23.6.2004:- "I am therefore, fully satisfied that there has no deliberate and palpable illegality in the process followed by the AD. However, final speaking orders of the disciplinary authority still remain to be passed. Accordingly, my findings article of charge wise, based on inquiry report and the reply submitted by the delinquent officer only are summarized below." 33. Thus it is clear that order dated 23.6.2004 is not the alleged tentative reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, but the order passed by the disciplinary authority "based on the inquiry report and reply submitted by the delinquent officer." If order dated 23.6.2004 contained the tentative reasons of disagreement, the same would have been supplied to the applicant and his comments would have been invited on the same. But to the contrary this order says that the same is passed "based on the inquiry report and the reply submitted by the delinquent officer." When no reasons of disagreement were conveyed to the applicant, where is the question of considering his reply? 34. It is settled law that requirement of recording tentative reasons of disagreement cannot be said to be complied with by recording such reasons in final order. In (1995) 6 SCC 157, Ram Kishan Vs. 34. It is settled law that requirement of recording tentative reasons of disagreement cannot be said to be complied with by recording such reasons in final order. In (1995) 6 SCC 157, Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India, Honble Supreme Court, held that merely because some reasons have been given in final order to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect. 35. Ordinarily, the courts are slow in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority. But when either the findings are perverse, or based on no evidence or there is non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority or where the punishment awarded is harsh and disproportionate, the Court are bound to interfere to preserve the majesty of law. 36. It is pertinent to mention here that the alleged reasons for disagreement supplied to the applicant. Annexure-A-6 vide memo dated 21.12.2002, Annexure-A-4, do not bear the signatures of disciplinary authority. It appears that the disciplinary authority acted in a mechanical way and probably the comments acted in a mechanical way and probably the comments as received from the HP. Agro Industries Corporation were forwarded to the applicant without the same having been independently examined by the disciplinary authority. The impugned order is also liable to be quashed on this short ground also. 37. In the instant case, there has been total lack of application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has been guided by the extraneous material gathered behind the back of the applicant. The comments sought for from the Corporation has been made basis for disagreement with the findings in the properly held inquiry by the duly constituted inquiry officer. There is no such procedure either in the rules or in practice as such a practice goes against the well-settled principle of natural justice. Therefore, the decision of disciplinary authority is contrary to the findings of inquiry officer and the evidence on record and thus vitiated the whole inquiry. The disciplinary authority has also not applied its own mind to the material and has by enlarge relied upon the comments of Corporation, which were not part of the inquiry and were also not supplied to the applicant with a view to afford him an opportunity to have his say. The disciplinary authority has also not applied its own mind to the material and has by enlarge relied upon the comments of Corporation, which were not part of the inquiry and were also not supplied to the applicant with a view to afford him an opportunity to have his say. Moreover, there is no such procedure in existence to call for such comments behind the back of delinquent official and then base the same for forming its opinion by the disciplinary authority. In this way, the whole action of respondent department and disciplinary authority .is vitiated and deserves to be set aside. In view of the foregoing we have no hesitation in setting aside impugned Annexure-A-9 as a result, the applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. Respondents are directed to comply with this order within two months from the receipt of the copy of this order. With these observation the present original application stands finally disposed of.