Disciplinary actions against employees are permissible for misconduct during duties, and such actions require careful scrutiny but should not be quashed without significant justification.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

By way of filing this petition, the petitioner who was a driver has challenged the charge-sheet dated 22.02.2011 issued to him wherein allegation has been levelled by the respondents that certain passengers were found travelling without ticket.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner without any conclusive evidence with a mala fide intention to spoil the career of the petitioner. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that for the misconduct of carrying the passengers without ticket, a memorandum of charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner wherein allegations have been levelled against him. Counsel submitted that the petitioner is at liberty to submit his reply and defence against the charges and, thereafter, the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority would conclude the matter after taking into account the defence of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that since there is a Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. This fact is not in dispute that for the alleged misconduct, the memorandum of charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner on 22.02.2011 with the allegation that certain passengers were found without ticket. The petitioner can put his defence by way of filing his reply and producing adequate evidence in support of his defence. In any case, this Court cannot act as an Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. K.K. Dhawan reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56, held as under:-

"26. In the case on hand, article of charge clearly mentions that the nine assessments covered by the article of charge were completed:

i) in an irregular manner,

ii) in undue haste, and

iii) apparently with a view to confer undue favour upon the assessee concerned.

(Emphasis supplied).

Therefore, the allegation of conferring undue favour is very much there unlike Civil Appeal No.560/91. If that be so, certainly disciplinary action is warranted. This Court had occasion to examine the position. In Union of India v. A. N. Saxena , (1992) 3 SCC 124 to which one of us (Mohan, J.) was a party, it was held as under (Paras 7 and 8 of AIR):

"It was urged before us by learned counsel for the respondent that as the respondent was performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in making the assessment orders in question even if his actions were wrong they could be corrected in an appeal or in revision and no disciplinary proceedings could be taken regarding such actions. In our view, an argument that no disciplinary action can be taken in regard to actions taken or purported to be done in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is not correct. It is true that when an officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions in the course of such proceeding should be taken only after great caution and a close scrutiny of his actions and only if the circumstances so warrant. The Initiation of such proceedings it is true, is likely to shake the confidence of the public in the officer concerned and also if lightly taken likely to undermine his independence. Henc