The requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to the employee and considering past conduct with notice to the employee in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldeep Mathur, J.

1. The appellants-respondents have approached this Court through this intra-court appeal for assailing the order dated 14.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Bench allowing the S.B. C.W. No.10320/2020 filed by the respondent-writ petitioner whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the petitioner had been modified to stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

3. A charge-sheet dated 08.06.2017 was served upon the petitioner alleging that along with the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred qua treatment of respondent-petitioner’s son, amount towards travelling expenses was claimed on the basis of forged documents. The allegation against respondent-petitioner was of manipulating a travelling bill with enhanced amount of Rs.833/-. A reply to the charge sheet was filed by the respondent-petitioner, denying the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, a detailed inquiry as per the procedure provided under Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site (NPCIL) Standing Orders (hereinafter referred to as ‘Standing Orders’) was conducted against the petitioner. The inquiry officer on 09.03.2018, submitted a detailed inquiry report holding the respondent-petitioner guilty of misdemeanor alleged in the charge-sheet. Disciplinary authority issued a letter on 29.10.2018, calling upon the respondent-petitioner to explain as to why the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer be not accepted. By a detailed representation dated 21.11.2018, respondent-petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are not in consonance with the factual aspects of the matter. The representation submitted by the respondent-petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, accordingly, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 16.05.2019, calling upon the respondent-petitioner to explain as to why the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement from service’ be not imposed upon him. A detailed reply dated 30.05.2019, was filed by the respondent-petitioner requesting that he may be exonerated from the charges levelled against him. In addition thereto, it was stated that punishment proposed is not commensurate with the alleged misconduct. However, vide order dated 11.05.2020, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of ‘compulsory retirement from service’ upon the respondent-petitioner. An appeal against the order of punishment dated 11.05.2020, was filed before appellate authority which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2020.

4. Learned Single Bench after hearing the parties, was pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 11.05.2020 and 13.08.2020 mainly for the following reasons: firstly, the punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon petitioner while taking into consideration the earlier misconduct or the earlier punishment imposed upon him, though, the show cause notice issued against petitioner pertaining to present matter did not mention any previous misconduct; secondly, the misconduct alleged is not that grave warranting imposition of the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement from service’.

5. Learned counsel, Shri Sanjay Nahar, representing the appellants-respondents vehemently submitted that the penalty of ‘compulsory retirement from service’ was imposed upon respondent-writ petitioner after following the procedure provided under Standing Orders. Counsel further submitted that in the inquiry conducted, it was established that respondent-petitioner had attempted to make dishonest monetary gain by submitting forged travelling bills/rail tickets. Counsel urged that clause 21.2 of Standing Orders clearly provides that while imposing a major penalty, past records of the delinquent workman can be considered. It was thus prayed that the order passed by learned Single Bench whereby the punishment imposed on the respondent-petitioner was substituted/modified deserves