Judgment :- Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. RULE, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order of imposition of penalty directing the following: “To recover loss of Rs.2,66,121/- (Rs. Two Lacs Sixty Six thousand & One hundred twenty one only) sustained to the company from your Gratuity payment of encashment of leave salary payable to you due to your retirement on 31.10.2007.” Admittedly formal enquiry has not been conducted and action is based on summary procedure relying the power to take action on summary enquiry as provided by Regulation 90 of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. 3. Chargesheet, copy whereof is at Annexure-A to the writ petition contains imputation of misconduct and charge of negligence, dishonesty, misuse of powers and breach of directions of the Head Office. 4. The chargesheet contains a statement as to adoption of summary procedure, which reads as follows: “On the basis of the above acts of irregularities/misconducts committed by you, it is necessary to initiate Disciplinary Action against you by issuing the charges sheet in summary proceedings as per regulation No.90 of MSEB Employees Service Regulations.” 5. It is seen that the petitioner has furnished reply to the chargesheet. A copy whereof is placed by him on record at Exh.B. It is seen that the petitioner has given chargewise reply and denied the charges. He claimed personal hearing and observance of principles of natural justice and has enlisted the documents which he relies upon. In the prayer he has specifically disputed and he has specifically prayed for not proceeding under Regulation 90. 6. It is seen that after receiving reply dated 24.10.2007 the competent authority Chief Engineer for North Zone has passed order imposing punishment. In so far as the satisfaction of the competent authority is concerned, it is recorded in the opening paragraph, which reads as follows: “A reply dt. 24.10.2007 submitted by you in response to the summary charge sheet issued to you vide letter under reference is found unsatisfactory. As such, the charges leveled against you in the letter of summary charge sheet are of grave misconducts, which lead to loss to the Company. 24.10.2007 submitted by you in response to the summary charge sheet issued to you vide letter under reference is found unsatisfactory. As such, the charges leveled against you in the letter of summary charge sheet are of grave misconducts, which lead to loss to the Company. I, therefore, the Chief Engineer (NZ) Nagpur Zone, Nagpur being the competent authority as per the powers delegated under Schedule “C” appended to M.S.E.B. Employees’ Service Regulation, is hereby proposed to award the following punishment.” (Sub paragraphing is done for convenience) 7. Heard both learned Advocates. Perused the petition and annexures thereto and the affidavit in reply along with annexures thereto. 8. Perusal of record tendered by respective parties discloses that the decision to proceed summary was reached by the competent authority. Specific reference thereto has been made in the show cause notice to a particular clause in Regulation 90. However, in final order, it is not shown that how petitioner’s objection to said summary procedure is ruled. 9. Petitioner challenges impugned order, interalia, on the ground of nonobservance of principles of natural justice and recourse to regulation 90 being arbitrary and unjustified. 10. It would be useful to advert to regulation No.91, which reads as follows: “91. PUNISHMENTS FOR MINOR LAPSES AND ACTS OF MISCONDUCT: The following punishments are prescribed for minor lapses and acts of misconduct. IMAGE 11. It is thus clear from the penalty which has been imposed that present is not a case which would fall in first category in regulation No.91. 12. Therefore, unless the case of misconduct can be irrefutably brought within the purview of Regulation No.90, formal and full fledged enquiry has to be conducted as per procedure laid down in Regulation 88 which deals with acts of misconduct. 13. Now, by filing affidavit in reply an explanation has been offered in paragraph 2 thereof, which reads as follows: “2) That the respondents had issued charge sheet under Regulation 90 of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board’s Employees’ Service Regulation which has been accepted by the petitioner as per service conditions. The charge sheet was issued under Regulation 90 only for the reason that there was a prima facie/ obvious evidence of the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner and moreover the misconduct committed is grave and convincing. Hence, the respondent adopted the procedure of issuing the summary charge sheet. The charge sheet was issued under Regulation 90 only for the reason that there was a prima facie/ obvious evidence of the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner and moreover the misconduct committed is grave and convincing. Hence, the respondent adopted the procedure of issuing the summary charge sheet. It is further pertinent to note here that under Regulation 90, such summary charge sheet also can be issued. Secondly the employee is due for retirement from the services of the Board within three months of detection of the misconduct, the summary charge sheet can be issued and such an employee can be dealt with accordingly. The copy of the service regulation 90 along with correction slip of 2001 is placed herewith on record as ANNEXURE R1.” 14. Such an explanation in the affidavit in reply for which no trace can be found either in the show cause notice, and not at all in the final order, amounts to supplanting the reasons which ought to have been seen in the decision. 15. This Court finds that the order of punishment is totally non-speaking order and therefore, it is an added vice to the omission or failure to observe principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that the delinquent / petitioner had given a detailed reply relied on placing reliance on various letters and communications and evidence had urged for a decision. The impugned order, however, is totally silent on the points of defences and contentions raised by the petitioner. 16. Perusal of the Regulations reveals that the employee has to be chargesheeted, provided with an opportunity of filing reply, inspection of documents, recording of oral evidence, findings by Enquiry Officer of show cause and decision thereon. Regulation 90 provides for summary procedure to be adopted, interalia, misconduct of minor nature which is an enabling provision to meet the eventualities and exigencies expressly spelt out therein as have been seen vividly and indicated in paragraph No.9 foregoing. 17. Apparently, petitioner’s case is not covered by Clause (a) (being caught red-handed) or Clause (d) (due to involvement in criminal case) of Regulation No.90. In this situation, the case may fall in categories (b), (c) or (e) of the said regulations. 17. Apparently, petitioner’s case is not covered by Clause (a) (being caught red-handed) or Clause (d) (due to involvement in criminal case) of Regulation No.90. In this situation, the case may fall in categories (b), (c) or (e) of the said regulations. In either of the eventualities it was necessary that the competent authority could have mentioned the clause under which the dispensation of enquiry was decided and this may have disclosed the decision making process. 18. One more reason which is seen in charge sheet towards need of summary inquiry is that the petitioner was to retire within 3 months. 19. It is pertinent to note that the charge sheet is dated 19th October, 2007, and reply of the petitioner is dated 24.10.2007, suggesting that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner. On the facts, when the petitioner had not delayed in reply, a question arises as to why the enquiry too could not have been completed with similar speed. No factual explanation what soever is coming forward. 20. The appointment of Enquiry Officer could have been done punctually and enquiry could have been completed. All that is seen that the competent authority was convinced even before or on the date of issue of charge sheet that it is not possible to complete the enquiry, if resorted, within during available at hand. Such an estimation may be like a cautious employer, but concluding amounts to predetermination upon the mode of action i.e. by way of dispensation of formal enquiry. Nothing precluded the respondents from expediting the procedure. 21. It is seen that the decision to dispense with formal full fledged enquiry has to be a conscious decision and to be taken on being sure for its propriety. It can’t be lost sight that the dispensation of enquiry results in serious consequences, since observance of principles of natural justice is an inbuilt guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. Observance of principles of natural justice is a rule and dispensation thereof has to be an exception and for this purpose the case requires to be carved out and spelt out from the record. 23. Solitary reason assigned in the charge sheet for deciding to dispense with formal enquiry is not sufficient and satisfactory. Other sufficient and satisfactory, muchless whatever reasons have not been spelt out in the chargesheet, referred to herein before. 23. Solitary reason assigned in the charge sheet for deciding to dispense with formal enquiry is not sufficient and satisfactory. Other sufficient and satisfactory, muchless whatever reasons have not been spelt out in the chargesheet, referred to herein before. Even no reasons spelt out in the final order as to why decision to proceed under regulation 90 is taken, was found to be justified. Final order does not disclose reasons as to why in spite of demand by employee, why the prayer for formal enquiry was rejected. 24. In these premises, the impugned order is found to be totally unsustainable being violative of principles of natural justice, non-speaking, and hence, passed in violation of constitutional guarantee available under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Impugned action deserves to be quashed and set aside. 25. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear own costs.