Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2380 (PNJ)

K. L. Ahuja v. State Of Haryana

2010-08-19

PERMOD KOHLI

body2010
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 19.09.2003 (Annexure P-6) awarding punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in Departmental proceedings and the order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure P-8) rejecting his appeal against the order imposing penalty. 2. The petitioner was working as the Executive Officer-cum- Secretary with the respondent Board and promoted as District Marketing Enforcement Officer. He was also having additional charge of Zonal Marketing Enforcement Officer. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 26.06.2000 (Annexure P-1) by respondent No. 2 alleging that while posted at Market Committee, Adampur, as Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, the petitioner allowed one Laxmi Devi, Sweepress in the Market Committee, Adampur to over stay in service for a period of five years, one month and 25 days unauthorisedly causing loss to the Board. Reply of the petitioner was asked for. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. He denied all the allegations leveled against him. It has been pleaded that the said Sweepress was medically examined and on the basis of the Medical Report, she was allowed to continue in service. The petitioner also pleaded that it was the responsibility of the subordinate staff to place the matter before the petitioner and when the matter was brought to his notice, medical examination of the Sweepress was got conducted from the Civil Surgeon, Hisar, who reported her age as 50 years and, thus, she was to retire on 05.11.2002 on attaining the age of 60 years i.e. after ten yeas from the date of her medical examination. It appears that the Disciplinary Authorities were not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and an enquiry was ordered against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31.12.2001 (Annexure P-3). It was reported that the charges against the petitioner have not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, however, disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and issued notice dated 17.04.2002 (Annexure P-4) to the petitioner communicating his opinion that a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect should be imposed upon him. The petitioner represented against the proposed penalty. He was also communicated the dissenting note with the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.05.2002 (Annexure P-5). The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide the impugned order dated 19.09.2003 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner represented against the proposed penalty. He was also communicated the dissenting note with the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.05.2002 (Annexure P-5). The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide the impugned order dated 19.09.2003 (Annexure P-6). The appeal preferred against the same, also stands rejected vide the, impugned order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure P-8). 3. Apart from the other grounds, one of the principal grounds for challenging the impugned order is in regard to non-recording of reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on each charge. 4. I have perused the dissenting note recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. The only reason for disagreement is that the officer has tried to shift the responsibility on his subordinate by saying that he did not put the file before him. It is further recorded that a senior officer cannot shift his responsibility on his subordinate for his own carelessness. It is also observed that the petitioner was aware of the date of retirement of the Sweepress as is evident from his correspondence with her available on the file of the Enquiry File at CP No. 24. It is also noticed that he was aware of the affidavit and the report of the Civil Surgeon. 5. I have also perused the Enquiry Report and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has recorded as many as 11 findings to exonerate the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority in his dissenting note did not record any reason for disagreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on each count. So called disagreement note of Disciplinary Authority is in a general and slipshod manner not in consonance with law. 6. The law on this point is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority is required to record his reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect to the each charge. This mandatory requirement of law has not been complied with. This principle is clearly laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998(3) S.C.T. 833 : (1998) 7 SCC 84, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows :- "19.......... This mandatory requirement of law has not been complied with. This principle is clearly laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998(3) S.C.T. 833 : (1998) 7 SCC 84, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows :- "19.......... whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry 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 enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept favourable conclusion of the enquiry 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." 7. Relying upon this judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.K. Prashar v. Union of India and others, 2008 (6) S.L.R., 202, made the following observations :- "6. A perusal of the said note shows that the Disciplinary Authority has not adverted to any of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer to give any reasons as to why such findings are not sustainable, but proceeded to impose the punishment of censure. It only reproduces the allegations as contained in the charge-sheet. Such aspect is apparent on record. Therefore, the said reasons of disagreement are in violation of the principles of natural justice as explained by the Honble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra, CWP No. 12915 of 2005) : (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 84. Reasons of disagreement are to be recorded in respect of findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Without discussing evidence or findings, mere reproduction of charges does not satisfies the requirement of reasoned disagreement note. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the process adopted by the Disciplinary Authority violates the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law." 8. Without discussing evidence or findings, mere reproduction of charges does not satisfies the requirement of reasoned disagreement note. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the process adopted by the Disciplinary Authority violates the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law." 8. The disciplinary authority was, in fact, required to discuss the evidence to come to a different conclusion than the one recorded by the Enquiry Officer on each charge. There is absolutely no such discussion and, thus, the order of the Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable in law. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.09.2003 (Annexure P-6) and 16.04.2007 (Annexure P-8) are hereby quashed and set aside. No costs. Petition allowed.