The Disciplinary Authority must provide a tentative opinion and an opportunity for hearing before disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's findings, adhering to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.Samir Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Pooja Ashar, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent – State.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.07.2010 passed by the respondent – State, duly produced at Annexure-F whereby, the respondent – State has imposed penalty of 100% pension cut for 20 years on the petitioner and to refund the amount, if any, deducted from the pension of the petitioner with 10% interest.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action undertaken by the respondent – State, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court and has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“19. The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order.

(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.07.2010 imposing the penalty of 100% pension cut for 20 years on the petitioner, and to refund the amount, if any deducted from the pension of the petitioner with 10% interest.

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent may be directed to suspend further operation of penalty order dated 6.7.2010.

(C) In alternative the Respondent may be directed to pay 50% pension to the petitioner.

(D) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.”

4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition read thus:-

4.1. The petitioner was working as Chief Officer in the State service and retired on superannuation on 30.11.2005. The petitioner was appointed on 02.05.1971 as Octroi Officer and then promoted as Chief Officer on 09.07.1976 which post, the petitioner held at the time of retirement.

4.2. It is the case of the petitioner that two days before superannuation, the petitioner was issued a chargesheet dated 28.11.2005 for holding a departmental inquiry with respect to 8 charges. The petitioner submitted his defense statement on 23.12.2005 to the aforesaid chargesheet. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the departmental inquiry, who, after holding the same, by report dated 05.05.2008, did not find the petitioner guilty of any of the charges. The said report is duly produced at Annexure- C. The said report was sent by the Inquiry Officer to the State Government vide letter dated 08.05.2008. The respondent – State was in disagreement to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and in view thereof, by letter dated 30.07.2008, called upon the petitioner to submit the defense statement, if any. It was stated in the said letter that the Disciplinary Authority had found all the 8 charges as proved. The said letter dated 30.07.2008 is duly produced at Annexure-D.

4.3. It is the case of the petitioner that by letter dated 14.08.2008, the petitioner replied to the same and pointed out that he was not guilty of any of the charges and requested to give him an opportunity of hearing before taking any final decision in the matter.

4.4. It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 06.07.2010, the respondent – State imposed penalty of 100% pension cut for a period of 20 years. In view thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court for the reliefs as referred above.

5. Mr.Samir Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not find any of the charges proved against the petitioner as per the report dated 05.05.2008. It is submitted that the State Government was in disagreement of the said report and hence, issued the reasons for disagreement by letter dated 30.07.2008 whereby, all the charges were held to be proved.

5.1. It is submitted that it was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to arrive at a tentative conclusion with regard to the guilt and not a final conclusion as is done in the present case. It is submitted that the State Government ought not to have recorded final conclusion in the show-cause notice but, only tentative conclusion to keep with an open mind, both a