A disciplinary authority must give the charge-sheeted officer a proper opportunity to respond to the charges against him before recording its final order.

Arijit Banerjee, J.:

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the final order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 24th May, 2014 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th August, 2014. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority who held that the charges brought against the writ petitioner were proved and the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the writ petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk by the Respondent Bank in April, 1971. He was granted several promotions over the years. While he was working as Senior Manager of the respondent Bank’s zonal office, Calcutta, he was served with a memo/show cause notice dated 18th April, 2006 whereby he was required to furnish his reply to several charges brought against him. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for the purpose of determining the veracity of the charges levelled against him.

3. The enquiring authority submitted his report dated 12th July, 2007. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of the charges which the latter had held to be proved. However, in respect of the charges which the enquiry officer held to be partly proved or not proved, the disciplinary authority disagreed and held those charges to be proved as well. He recommended the punishment of dismissal from service.

4. The petitioner received the final order of the disciplinary authority dated 3rd December, 2007 dismissing him from service and further disqualifying him from any future employment.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed by an order dated 16th August, 2008.

6. The petitioner assailed the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition being WP No. 1631 of 2008 in this court. By a judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2010 this court set aside not only the appellate authority’s order dated 16th August, 2008, but also the order of dismissal dated 3rd December, 2007, the enquiry report dated 12th July, 2007 as also the charge sheet dated 4th July, 2006. The main ground on which the writ petition was allowed was that since the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the finding of the enquiring authority in respect of four articles of charges, before recording his own finding, the disciplinary authority should have recorded his tentative reasons for such disagreement and should have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court held that by not doing so, the respondent authorities had acted in breach of the principles of natural justice. However, since the petitioner had already attained the age of retirement on 31st October, 2009, no direction for his reinstatement in service could be given but the respondent Bank was directed to pay to the petitioner all consequential benefits.

7. The respondent Bank preferred an appeal against the order of the Ld. Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench by a judgment and order dated 16th September, 2010.

8. The respondent Bank preferred a special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the judgments and orders of the Ld. Single Judge as also of the Hon’ble Division Bench. The special leave petition which was subsequently marked as Civil Appeal No. 4442 of 2011 was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order dated 26th February, 2014.

9. In the said order the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which unilaterally disagreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, cannot be sustained. It is settled law that the disciplinary authority can differ with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. However, before any action can be taken on the basis of the said difference of opinion, the delinquent must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Since no such opportunity was afforded to the employee and the difference of opin