Disciplinary authorities must provide grounds for disagreement with inquiry findings to uphold natural justice; failure to do so invalidates imposed penalties.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties at the stage of admission.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays that the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Mumbai CSMT be quashed and set aside.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined with the Railway Protection Force. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and there were total four charges levelled against him which are at page no.7. After framing of charges, the inquiry officer vide his report dated 20.02.2021 pointed out that charge nos.1 and 2 were not proved and said report was submitted to the Divisional Security Commissioner/Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority showed its disagreement with charge nos.1 and 2 and while doing so, the disciplinary authority ought to have recorded reasons for such disagreement and ought to have recorded its own finding thereon.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority ought to have provided the copy of the report of disagreement to the petitioner but without providing the same, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from services. Therefore, he submits that this non furnishing of report of disagreement, clearly violates the principles of natural justice as well as Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Const. Seth Pal Singh Vs. Garg and Union of India and others reported in 2010 SCC Online Del 3895, more particularly para 15, which reads thus :

“15. It needs no elaboration that when disciplinary proceedings are envisaged against any employee, the disciplinary authority has the Jurisdiction either to proceed in the matter and conduct the inquiry himself or to delegate the same to an appropriate inquiry officer. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority assigned the task of undertaking the inquiry to his subordinate. The disciplinary authority was not in agreement in entirety with the report which he received in the second inquiry as well. Faced with such disagreement, the question which arises is the manner in which the disciplinary authority shall proceed in the event of disagreement with the findings and recommendations of an enquiry officer. This issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Supreme Court in the plethora of judgments which have been relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner before us.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Ram Dutta Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2016 SCC Online Cal 4147, more particularly para 14, which reads thus :

“14. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, it is well settled that the disciplinary authority differs with the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to any charge against the charged employee, it must serve a notice/show cause informing the charged employee of the grounds on which it proposes to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. This mandatory obligation of the disciplinary authority is based on the principles of natural justice and by no means the disciplinary authority can avoid this obligation on the ground of absence of any Rule or Regulation to that effect.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law laid down by the High Courts which