Point of Law: It is well settled, by a series of rulings of Apex Court and various High Courts including Court, that in a case where disciplinary authority and enquiry authority are two different functionaries, then Enquiry Officer has to submit enquiry report, with clear fact findings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The afore-captioned Original Petition instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned Ext.P4 final order rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram on 9.12.2022 in O.A.No.1959/2021, whereby it has been ordered that the impugned Annexure-A12 penalty order dated 03.09.2021 imposing penalty of bar of the increment with cumulative effect for two years, will stand set aside and that the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including declaration of probation without any further delay etc.

2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the Original Application. The sole respondent herein is the sole applicant in the Original Application.

3. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the Original Petition and Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein.

4. The above Original Petition has arisen out of the final order rendered on 9.12.2022 in Ext.P1 O.A.No.1959/2021, filed by the respondent herein before the Tribunal. The prayers in Ext.P1 O.A.No.1959/2021 are as follows

“a. To set aside Annexure A1 Memo of Charges, A8 Show Cause Notice and Annexure A12 order issued by the 1st respondent.

b. Declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant be dropped in view of the Annexure-A7 Enquiry Report and that the applicant be granted her due promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

c. Direct the 1st respondent to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant in view of the Annexure A7 Enquiry Report and to declare the probation of the applicant in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and to consider her for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, from the date on which she became eligible for the same.

d. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant, and

e. Grant the cost of this Original Application.”

5. The essential grievance of the petitioners is against the imposition of major penalty of bar of the increment with cumulative effect for a period of two years, as ordered in terms of Annexure-A12 penalty order dated 03.09.2021 issued by the competent authority of the State Government in the Public Works Department.

6. We have heard both sides in extenso and have considered the rival pleadings and materials on record.

7. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that though the Tribunal cannot be faulted, for having set aside the impugned Annexure-A12 penalty order, on account of the grave procedural impropriety committed by the disciplinary authority concerned, the Tribunal has gone wrong in not remanding the matter to the competent disciplinary authority for action afresh from the stage of issuance of show cause notice, etc. The reasons for arriving at the above said conclusions will be stated hereinafter.

8. A brief reference to the core facts of the case would be highly pertinent. The sole respondent herein ('applicant' for short), while holding the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of the State Government, was served with Annexure-A1 Memo of Charges dated 24.10.2016 issued by the competent authority of the State Government in the Public Works Department. The disciplinary enquiry for major penalty proceedings was completed and the Enquiry Officer had submitted Annexure-A7 enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. A reading of Annexure-A7 enquiry report would indicate that, it was found that the first charge against the applicant may be dropped based on the written statement of the applicant/delinquent officer. Further, it has been opined by the Enquiry Officer in Annexure-A7 that, as against charges II to VII of Annexure-A1 Memo of Charges, the defence statement of the applicant may be accepted and the allegations may be dropped and as against charge No.VIII, the Enquiry Officer held that the findings of the Vigilanc