Important Point
If the disciplinary authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer than the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said finding.

Headnote:(i) Service Jurisprudence -Complaint of using sub-standard material against respondent an engineer in 1973-Enquiry-Exonerated the respondent in 1984-State Government (Disciplinary Authority) disagreeing - Concluded that charge is established-Awarded minor punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect -Concerned employee challenging it on ground that there is procedural irregularity or violation of principle of natural justice in as much as disciplinary authority could not have inflicted punishment without giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent-Whether correct? (No).
       Held : The grievance of the delinquent government servant is based upon a thorough misconception about the rights of the government servant concerned. It is undisputed that the enquiring officer did not rely upon the FSL report on the ground that the procedure prescribed for taking sample have not been followed and therefore exonerated the delinquent government servant. But the disciplinary authority recorded reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiring officer and held that the charges against the respondent has been established. It is well settled that the disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the enquiring officer and act upon his own conclusion, but the only requirement is that the said disciplinary authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. If the disciplinary authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of enquiring officer then the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said finding. In this view of the matter, the disciplinary authority was well within his powers to award punishment on the findings arrived at by him. We do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the delinquent government servant that before the disciplinary authority proceeds to award punishment, the delinquent government servant should have been afforded a further opportunity of hearing. As it appears, the punishment of stopping two increments without cumulative effect is a minor punishment under CCA Rules. Then again the delinquent government servant filed review petition and State Government allowed the review petition and reduced the punishment to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. In such circumstances the argument that there has been a gross violation of principle of natural justice is devoid of force. A set of charges having been framed and the delinquent government servant having filed his show cause to the set of charges, the regular enquiry having been held and the enquiring officer having recorded his findings and thereafter the disciplinary authority having disagreed with the findings by recording the reasons therefor and ultimately awarding minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, there is no procedural irregularity therein nor can it be said that there has been any violation of principle of natural justice. Thus the punishment imposed upon by the authority has rightly not been interfered with by the High Court. (Para 5)
       (ii) Service Jurisprudence -Engineer of State Government-Complaint of delinquency in 1973 -Enquiry - Punished in 1984-Circular of Govt. regarding lapsing of punishment after expiry of 7 years-High Court holding it should be counted from date of delinquency and not from date of punishment whether correct? (No)-It should be counted from date of punishment. (Para 4)
       (iii) Constitution of India-Art. 16-Promotion of delinquent employee-Enquiry pending-Promotion considered-Minor punishment imposed-The question of reconsideration of promotion-Will not arise till 7 years of punishment-High Court directing State Govt. to consider case of delinquent Govt. Servant even in that period-Whether correct? (No). (Para 4)

Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-These two appeals, one by the state of Rajasthan and the other by the concerned employee arise out of the same judgment and as such are being disposed of by this common judgment. The respondent Shri M.C. Saxena in Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 1993 is an engineer who joined the service of the Rajasthan Government in the year 1957 as Assistant Engineer. While he was continuing as Executive Engineer at Bharatpur, certain complaints were received by the Anti Corruption Department to the effect that the material used by the Engineer at Seola and Baretha Bandhs are sub-standard materials. On the basis of the said complaint certain preliminary enquiry was held and then the State Government issued a set of charges against the respondent and four other officials in June 1979. On receipt of the explanation from the respondent, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges against the respondent by order of the State Government dated 21st January, 1980. The enquiry officer ultimately submitted a report on 24th July 1984 indicating therein that the samples which have been taken by the concerned officer and were sent to the FSL was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure and therefore the report of the FSL cannot be relied upon. Accordingly the Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent. During the pendency of the aforesaid departmental proceedings the respondent was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on provisional basis by order dated 24th November, 1984. The State Government who is the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and disagreed with the findings of the said enquiry officer. The State Government came to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent have been duly established and accordingly awarded the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect by order dated 8th October, 1995. On a Review Petition being filed by the respondent under Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, the Government allowed the same partly by order dated 17th December 1986 and reduced the punishment imposed to withhold one increment without cumulative effect. The respondent then filed a second Review Petition which however was dismissed by order dated 20th June 1988. In the year 1989 the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of promotion in respect of vacancies in the post of Superintending Engineer for 81-82 and 82-83 but did not find the respondent fit for promotion for the year 81-82. The said DPC however, found the respondent suitable for promotion in respect of the vacancies in the year 82-83. In accordance with the said decision the State Government finally passed the order on 27th December 1989 granting retrospective promotion to the respondent to the post of Superintending Engineer. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the validity of certain provisions of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules as well as the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee for selection on promotion against the vacancies of 81-82 and 82-83 for the post of Superintending Engineer and the consequential order of the State Government dated 27th December 1989. The said writ petition was registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 3323 of 1989 and has been disposed of by the judgment dated 21st January, 1993, which is being impugned by the State of Rajasthan in Civil Appeal 2536 of 1993. The employee Shri M.C. Saxena also has come up in the other appeal challenging the order of punishment inflicted upon him by the State of Rajasthan, in withholding one increment without cumulative effect. It may be stated that during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court the respondent was promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer against the vacancy of 1992-93. The High Court by the impugned order came to the conclusion that since t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 266

Important PointIf the disciplinary authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer than the Court cannot inter­fere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said finding.

Important Point
If the disciplinary authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer than the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said finding.