Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
B.S. Paikra, S/o. Late Shri K.S. Paikra - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Forests, Ministry Of Forests And Environment and Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 4085 of 2015
Decided On : 30-08-2024
(A) Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 - Rule 9(2) - Disciplinary proceedings - Requirement of hearing - Disciplinary authority failed to provide an opportunity of hearing before disagreeing with the inquiry report, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 5 and 6)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized the necessity of affording a hearing to the delinquent officer before recording disagreement with the findings of the inquiry authority. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Range Forest Officer, challenged the disciplinary authority's decision to impose a penalty based on findings contrary to an inquiry report that exonerated him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority did not afford the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing before disagreeing with the inquiry report, rendering the subsequent orders unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority was required to serve notice before recording disagreement with the inquiry report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principles of natural justice necessitate that the disciplinary authority must provide an opportunity for hearing before disagreeing with the inquiry findings.
Result: The orders were quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for fresh proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant the consequential benefits including promotion from back date, arrears of Pay & Allowances as well as other service benefits along with Interest which has been denied to the Petitioner due to impugned orders.
10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to refund the entire amount recovered from the Petitioner in pursuance to the order of recovery along with prevailing rate of interest.
10.4 Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Range Forest Officer at Janakpur Forest Range, Manendragarh in the year 2009. The Article of charges was issued making allegations to the effect that-
(ii) difference of amount of Rs. 98,135/- was found during physical verification regarding work related to Soil & Water Conservation Program; Contour trench and Soil & Boulder Check Dam during the said period.
He further submits that prior to the initiation of the inquiry; two preliminary inquiries were conducted in which no irregularity was found. In the third inquiry conducted by the complainant, the DFO, Manendragrah's allegations were found true and subsequently, a full-fledged inquiry was conducted and thereafter, an inquiry report was placed before disciplinary authority. It appears that the petitioner was exonerated from the allegations i.e. both the charges. The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the inquiry report issued a show-cause notice on 16.05.2013. The disciplinary authority recorded a finding that both the charges were found proved against the petitioner and proposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 98,135/- and further recommended the State Government to inflict major punishment on the petitioner. The petitioner after receiving show-cause notice dated 16.05.2013 moved an application before the disciplinary authority itself for supply of inquiry report as the same was not served upon the petitioner. The punishment of recovery of Rs. 98,135/- and stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2014 by the State Government. Prior to the punishment order, an inquiry report was served upon the petitioner. He also submits that in the inquiry report, charges were found that were not proved against the petitioner. He argues that the disciplinary authority before recording any finding ought to have served notice upon the petitioner and the opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to him, therefore the show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 2 and the punishment order are liable to be quashed.
In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yoginath D. Bagde Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 739.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes. He submits that after receipt of the inquiry report, a proper show-cause notice strictly in accordance with law was served upon the petitioner on 19.08.2013. He further submits that a reply was also filed by the petitioner and each detail was elaborated in the reply. He also submits that the petitioner filed a reply to the said show-cause notice thus; he w
Disciplinary authorities must afford an opportunity for hearing before disagreeing with inquiry findings, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary authority must adhere to the principles of natural justice and issue a show-cause notice before imposing a penalty.
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
Point of Law- The word “consider”, is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect....
The disciplinary authority must provide the delinquent officer with the enquiry report and tentative reasons for disagreement, in accordance with principles of natural justice.
The Disciplinary Authority must issue a reasoned notice of disagreement when departing from exonerating findings in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to disciplinary procedure as mandated by statutory provisions, establishing that non-compliance renders disciplinary actions invalid.
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural requirements and ensure natural justice, especially when disagreeing with inquiry findings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
