Important point
Disciplinary Authority is not required to record its reasons if it concurs with the Enquiry Officer’s findings.

Headnote:Service Law—Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules—Rule 33—Constitution of India—Article 226—Order of removal—Whether it is necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to give reasons for agreeing with the Enquiry Officer’s report when the delinquent officer has submitted a representation challenging the report of the Enquiry Officer—(No)—Whether Disciplinary Authority is bound to issue notice to the delinquent officer before passing order of punishment—(No)—Respondent was employed as an Assistant Materials Manager with appellant company—Allegations that respondent did not adhere to the procedure and instructions while despatching 36,000 jute bags to the supplier and had not defaced them—Disciplinary proceedings were commenced against respondent—Report of Enquiry Officer that charge is proved against respondent—Order of removal was passed on basis of report of Enquiry Officer—Civil suit filed challenging order of removal—Respondent was given an opportunity to represent against Enquiry Officer’s report—Respondent submitted his representation to the Disciplinary Authority—Disciplinary Authority upheld the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer—Writ petition—High Court held that it was imperative for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with objections giving his own reasons in support of his conclusion—According to the High Court, failure to give reasons dealing with respondent’s objections to the Enquiry Officer’s report amounted to violation of principles of natural justice—Whether judgment of the High Court is sustainable—(No)—Matter remanded back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider respondent’s plea.
       Held : We are unable to agree with the reasoning or with the conclusion reached by the High Court. We have quoted the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. It could not be said that the Enquiry Officer had not reached a firm conclusion with regard to both the charges as far as the respondent was concerned. It is true that the Enquiry Officer said that there was no procedure laid down in writing relating to the defacement of rejected bags. But he did not say that there were no instructions given to the respondent to ensure the defacement of rejected bags. In fact the Enquiry Officer had listed his conclusions and findings at the end of his report from which it is abundantly clear that he was convinced that instructions had been issued to the respondent to deface the bags before despatching them to the supplier. The Enquiry Officer held that the respondent alone was not responsible for the lapse. This did not mean that he had not come to a firm conclusion that the respondent was responsible. As far as charge No. 2 is concerned the conclusion was categorical that it had been proved against the respondent. (Para 8)
       It is apparent from sub rule (2) that the Disciplinary Authority is not required to record its reasons if it concurs with the Enquiry Officer’s findings in contradiction with the situation in which the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Only in the latter case does sub-rule (2) expressly mandate that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer record its reasons for such disagreement as well as its own findings on such charges. (Para 11)
       This Court had issued limited notice as to whether the matter should be remanded back to the Appellate Authority rather than the Disciplinary Authority as directed by the High Court. For the reasons stated we are of the view that the appropriate order in the circumstances of this case will be to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the respondent’s plea that the Disciplinary Authority had not appreciated the respondent’s objection correctly. (Para 15)

Judgment

Ruma Pal, J.—Leave granted.

2. The two issues which arise for determination in this appeal are;

1) Whether it is necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to give reasons for agreeing with the Enquiry Officer’s report when the delinquent officer has submitted a representation challenging the report of the Enquiry Officer?

2) Whether the Disciplinary Authority is bound to issue notice to the delinquent officer before passing the order of punishment?

3. The respondent was employed as an Assistant Materials Manager with the appellant. It is alleged that Lot No. 259 consisting of 36,000 jute bags supplied by M/s. Swastik Laminated Industries to the appellant No. 1 was found to be defective and was rejected. The rejected bags were required to be returned to the supplier after they had been defaced. On the allegation that the respondent did not adhere to the procedure and instructions while despatching the 36,000 jute bags to the supplier and had not defaced them, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report in which he held as follows:-

Charge No. 1

“There is no laid down procedure in writing for defacement or rejected bags, and proper procedure had not been adopted to deliver the rejected bags to supplier, Shri P.K. Khanna alone is not responsible for this lapse. The Charge No. 1 is therefore proved to the extent that Shri P.K. Khanna had not ensured the defacement of 36,000 bags when gate passes were issued by him.

Charge No. 2

Charge No. 2 proved as Shri P.K. Khanna did not get all the rejected bags defaced before issued (sic) of outgoing gate passes thereby showing interest and took hasty actions in despatching, loading of trucks and issue of outgoing gate passes for rejected lot No. 259 of jute bags to M/s. SLI Bahadurgarh.”

4. On the basis of the Enquiry Officer’s report, on 18th June, 1991 the respondent was removed from service. The respondent filed a Civil Suit challenging the order of removal. The Trial Court set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and directed him to furnish a copy of the report. However, liberty was granted to the appellants to proceed with the enquiry by placing the respondent under suspension from the stage of furnishing him with a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report. The respondent’s appeal from this order of the Trial Court was dismissed.

5. In compliance with the order of the Civil Court, a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report was made available to the respondent, who was also placed under suspension. The respondent was given an opportunity to represent against the Enquiry Officer’s report within 15 days. The respondent submitted his representation to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority passed the following order:-

“The undersigned has carefully gone through the report of the enquiry officer, statements of witnesses and documents produced as evidence both by the presenting officer as well as the defence assistant of the delinquent employee during the enquiry proceedings. I have also carefully examined the representation of Shri P.K. Khanna dated 9.6.97. After going through the Enquiry Report, documents produced by during the course of the enquiry, evidence recorded, written statement of defence and representation submitted by Shri P.K. Khanna, the undersigned is in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry officer that charges leveled against Sh. R.K. Khanna vide charge sheet dated 19.2.90 stand proved.

Seeing the gravity of the charges and critical nature of job of materials Department where the Company’s officers have to handle matters connected with the business and property of the company involving huge financial stake in each and every transaction the charges proved against Sh. Khanna assume utmost gravity. Therefore, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that retention of Sh. P.K. Khanna, Asstt. Materials Officer in the services of the Company is not in the interest of the Company and imposition of penal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1136

Important pointDisciplinary Authority is not required to record its reasons if it concurs with the Enquiry Officer’s findings.

Cases Referred (2)

Important point
Disciplinary Authority is not required to record its reasons if it concurs with the Enquiry Officer’s findings.