In the absence of a rule requiring a hearing and reasoned order in an appeal against a domestic enquiry finding, it is not obligatory on the part of the Appellate Authority to afford a hearing and to pass a reasoned order.

JUDGMENT - A.C. AGARWAL, J.:---By the present petition, petitioner seeks to impugne an order of dismissal passed by the District Judge, Thane on 7th April, 1993. The said order is affirmed by the High Court in an Administrative Appeal on 28th March, 1994. Short facts leading to the filing of the petition are as under.

2.Petitioner joined service in the Judicial department at Thane as a peon. The order of appointment is dated 31st October, 1990. The same is annexed at Exh. 'A' to the petition. The order shows that his appointment was made purely on temporary basis and his services are made liable to be terminated at any time without notice or without assigning any reason therefor.

3.During the period 2nd November, 1990 to 3rd June, 1991, the petitioner worked as a peon in the Court of VIIIth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane. On 3rd June, 1991, he was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Palghar. While serving at Palghar, petitioner started absenting himself from duty on several occasions. Despite warning, he continued absenting himself from duty. Hence on 4th February, 1992 a Show Cause Notice was issued by the District Judge, Thane pointing out that the petitioner had remained absent on various dates mentioned in the notice. Petitioner was asked to show cause why his services should not be terminated. Petitioner vide his reply dated 13th February, 1992 showed cause. On 18th August, 1992 a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. On 2nd October, 1992 an additional charge sheet dated 30th September, 1992 was served upon the petitioner in respect of additional absence of the petitioner from duty. On 14th October, 1992, petitioner showed cause against the additional charge sheet. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane was appointed as Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, petitioner admitted the charge contained in the charge sheet and hence no evidence was required to be led in the enquiry. On 2nd March, 1993, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the District Judge holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. On 15th March, 1993 the District Judge being the Disciplinary Authority issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner to show cause why major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him. On 29th March, 1993, petitioner submitted his reply and prayed that the proposed punishment should not be imposed upon him. By the impugned order passed by the District Judge on 7th April, 1993, petitioner has been dismissed from service. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner on 13th July, 1993 preferred an Administrative Appeal to the High Court. By an order passed on 28th April, 1994, the said Appeal is dismissed. The aforesaid orders are impugned in the present petition.

4.Mr. Kochar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been persuaded by the Enquiry Officer to admit his guilty by extending an inducement that in case he does so he will be let off lightly. According to him no reliance ought to have been placed on the aforesaid admission. Hence, the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer deserves to be quashed.

5.In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer who was at the relevant time Chief Judicial Magistrate and is now Civil Judge, Senior Division has put in an Affidavit in reply. In the Affidavit he has specifically denied that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner was impressed upon by him that if the petitioner admits the guilt, only minor penalty would be imposed upon him and that the petitioner was induced and/or forced by him to admit the guilt and was compelled to give his statement on 15th February, 1993 before him. In our judgment, the contention made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. The Enquiry Officer is a responsible Judicial Officer, he has no axe to grind, he has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document