Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 1988
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. P. Jeevan Reddy, K. S. Paripoornan
R. R. GABHANE, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 14823 of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10110 of 1996),
decided on November 22, 1996.
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings and communication of Enquiry Officer's findings
Headnote:
Enquiry Officer - Disciplinary Proceedings - Communication of Enquiry Officer's Report - Court sets aside judgment and restores order for continuation of proceedings with communication of reasons for disagreement with Enquiry Officer's findings
Fact of the Case:
The Enquiry Officer's report in favor of the appellant was not communicated, and a show-cause notice proposing dismissal was issued without indicating that the charges were not proved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the conduct unfair and set aside the Division Bench's judgment, restoring the order for continuation of proceedings with communication of reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings.
Issues: Communication of Enquiry Officer's report, fairness in disciplinary proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The disciplinary authority must communicate the reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings to the delinquent officer and conduct proceedings fairly.
Final Decision: The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside, and the order of the learned Single Judge is restored for continuation of proceedings with communication of reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings.
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard the counsel for both the parties.
3. In this case the Enquiry Officers report was in favour of the appellant delinquent officer. He had exonerated the appellant of the charges. The copy of this report was not communicated to the appellant. A show-cause notice was given proposing to dismiss him from service for those charges, without indicating in any manner that the Enquiry Officer had found the charges not proved. The Enquiry Officers report was also not supplied to the appellant. The Enquiry Officers report came to light only when it was filed along with the counter-affidavit in the writ petition. This was not a fair thing to do. We are not going into the question whether it was obligatory upon the disciplinary authority to communicate the reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent officer or not. In view of the above conduct which prima facie looks to us unfair, we think it appropriate to interfere in the matter. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge is restored only to the extent the said order remits the matter to the disciplinary authority to continue the proceedings from the stage of the second show-cause notice.
4. The disciplinary authority shall now communicate the reasons for his disagreement with the Enquiry Officers findings to the delinquent officer, hear him and pass orders according to law. All this exercise shall be completed within six months from today.
5. For this period of six months, status quo as of today shall continue.
6. The appeal is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
