The court emphasized the principle of natural justice and the requirement for providing an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent before taking a final decision on the charges.

1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 6th December, 2001 passed by the respondent, CRPF whereunder it was held that the charges framed against him under Article – I and II, for failing to join his duties without any valid permission/sanction of any kind of leave and for failing to join his duties upon being relieved on 12th June, 1999 on transfer and continuing to remain absent, were fully proved and accepting the advice of the UPSC, the penalty of compulsory retirement with 30% cut in pension on a permanent basis under Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was imposed upon him. Further, the petitioner’s unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 13th June, 1999, till 1st June, 2000 (for 355 days) was treated as dies non.

2. On 23rd February, 2016, a twofold argument had been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and recorded as below:-

“2. A twofold argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order which is that after conducting the departmental Inquiry that had culminated in a report dated 8th May, 2001, the Inquiry Officer had held that Article-I of the charge levelled against the petitioner was partially proved and Article-II was not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not concur with the Inquiry Officer and issued a Disagreement Note dated 25th April, 2001, calling up the petitioner to respond.

3. It is the stand of the petitioner that the said Disagreement Note was not tentative, but conclusive in nature and the petitioner did not respond thereto as it would have been an empty formality. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Mishra reported as (1998) 7 SCC 84.

4. The second argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that it had transpired later on that the Disciplinary Authority had approached the UPSC for obtaining its advice, which was duly conveyed vide letter dated 29th October, 2001, wherein it was recommended that the charges established against the petitioner were grave in nature and ends of justice would be met if penalty of compulsory retirement is imposed upon him with 30% cut in his pension on a permanent basis. He states that it was the very same punishment which had ultimately been imposed upon him by the Competent Authority, without furnishing a copy of the said report to the petitioner before it was acted upon, thus, violating the principles of natural justice. To fortify his submission, learned counsel relies on the decision in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. S.K. Kapoor reported as (2011) 4 SCC 589 and reiterated in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. R.P. Singh reported as (2014) 7 SCC 340.”

3. Ms. Barkha Babbar, learned counsel for the respondents, had sought time to examine the plea taken by the other side and the case was adjourned for today. Today, learned counsel questions the right of the petitioner to advance the second argument noted above on the ground that the petitioner had failed to take any such plea in his representation submitted to the disciplinary authority and nor had such a plea been taken in the grounds raised in the writ petition to assail the impugned order.

4. As for the first plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an undisputed position that after the departmental inquiry was conducted and the report dated 8th May, 2001 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, wherein it was held that the charge in Article-I was partially proved and the charge in Article II was not proved, the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the recommendations and findings of the Inquiry Officer and had proceeded to issue a Disagreement Note dated 25th April, 2010 (Annexure P-6), calling upon the petitioner to respond. However, on a bare perusal of the said Disagreement Note, it emerges clea