Point of Law: Whenever disciplinary authority disagrees with inquiry authority then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement.

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and, by an appropriate writ order or direction:-

1. That the impugned order of punishment dated 26.05.2016 forwarded by letter dated 31.05.2015 (Annex.26) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. That the impugned order of recovery dated 02.08.2016 (Ann.27) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

3. That the petitioner may also kindly be granted relief in consonance with the facts stated and the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition.

4. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may also kindly be allowed with costs.”.

2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the respondent-Department; he was further promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 04.01.2007, and while he was so promoted, the petitioner was relieved on 06.01.2007, for the purpose of joining at his place of posting, upon transfer, and was directed to entrust his charge to one Shri Rahul Goyal. Despite his the transfer, while charge was not being taken from the petitioner, he wrote letter to the concerned Assistant Engineer to release his LPC.

2.1 The Chief Account Officer, IGNP, Bikaner on 13.04.2007 addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer (Central Store Division), Bikaner by which shortages under various heads were pointed out, except the heads in regard to the articles falling under the charge of the petitioner, at the relevant time. Thereafter, upon the direction of the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer constituted a Committee, headed by the Executive Engineer, who prepared the report, wherein it was observed that no shortage has been found in the articles, in charge of the petitioner.

2.2. The Chief Accounts officer thereafter, issued a letter dated 27.02.2009 to the Executive Engineer (Central Store Division) IGNP, Bikaner, showing that there is a total shortage of Rs.3,89,075 in Store Shade No.1. Thereafter, once again, the Executive Engineer (Vigilance Quality Control & Technical Advisor Division), IGNP, Bikaner prepared a report, holding the petitioner to be guilty of the shortage. The report was further forwarded to the Additional Chief Engineer, IGNP, Bikaner. The Chief Engineer vide letter dated 23.06.2011 directed deduction of 25% of amount in regard to shortage of 8.138 metric ton of steel from the petitioner and other engineers working in the Department. The petitioner filed reply on 24.06.2011 stating therein that he was not guilty of any shortage, yet he deposited an amount of Rs. 54,755/- under protest.

2.3. The Chief Engineer, IGNP, Bikaner vide letter dated 26.09.0211 requested to initiate the enquiry against the engineers, including the present petitioner. In this perspective, an undated charge-sheet was prepared and served upon the petitioner.

2.4 As per the averments made in the petition, the Chief Engineer, IGNP, Bikaner, looking to the post held by the petitioner, upon promotion, could not have acted as Disciplinary Authority. Ultimately, the Department of Personnel on 20.03.2012 issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner and other engineers. The petitioner filed the reply to the said charge-sheet, while stating that the charges levelled therein were not maintainable. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, a written note was submitted by the presenting officer before the enquiry officer; wherein as per the departmental representative also, the enquiry against the petitioner was totally uncalled.

2.5. However, while disagreeing with such enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the same. Thereafter, vide letter dated 31.05.2016, the impugned punishment order dated 26.05.2016 was communicate