The disciplinary authority must provide the delinquent officer with the enquiry report and tentative reasons for disagreement, in accordance with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the respondent of withholding of two increments with future effect of the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was serving as a Taluka Development Officer. A charge-sheet came to be issued upon the petitioner on 13.03.2006 by the State Government and departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner in respect of five charges which relate to the period from 11.03.1997 to 10.08.2000. After the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 29th September 2008. The Inquiry Officer did not find any substance in the charge against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, and by issuing a notice dated 16th June 2010 without supplying a copy of the report, called upon the petitioner to submit his representation against the same as the disciplinary authority was differed with the findings and report of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his representation against the said notice. The State Government has imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments with future effect on the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the respondent disciplinary authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard Mr. Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.K.K. Desai, learned AGP appearing for the respondent- State.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, it is undisputed fact that the notice dated 16th June 2010 was issued without the copy of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer along with the tentative reasons, to the present petitioner. It is needless to say that when a report is filed by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, if differs, then prior to coming to any conclusion, the decision making authority has to give an independent finding and tentative reasons are required to be given as to why the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is not accepted by him or he is not in agreement with the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, which is a settled position of law.

6. In the present case, a second show-cause notice came to be issued by the respondent, which is produced at Annexure-D dated 16th June 2010, whereby it is apparently clear that a copy of the reasons is enclosed but nowhere it is stated that a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer is enclosed along with said notice. The disciplinary authority has given two tentative reasons, but why and based on which materials the decision making authority is not in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Inquiry Officer and on what basis, it differed and arrived at the tentative decision of not accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, is not spelled out in the notice.

7. Even the circular issued by the State Government in its General Administrative Department, dated 20th September 1993, also states that when the Inquiry Officer’s report is not accepted by the disciplinary authority, then the disciplinary authority has to supply a copy of the report along with his tentative decision for differing with the report, under Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The disciplinary authority is duty bound to assign reasons to accept or not the reasons of the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, only a copy of the tentative reasons are given to the petitioner but no any reason is assigned by the respondent disciplinary authority for non-agreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner is denied up to that extent an opportunity of being heard. On that aspect a prejudice is caused to the petitioner as he is denied reasonable opportunity of being heard.

8. Further, in view of the d