Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1411
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Umesh Kumar Sharma, S/o. Late Shri Manohar Lal Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8726 Of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Lodha
The disciplinary authority must provide the enquiry report and communicate any points of disagreement to the employee to uphold principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
(A) Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1962 - Regulation 7(viii)(a) and (ix) - Disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner challenged the penalty order for not being provided the enquiry report and points of disagreement, which violated principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural safeguards in disciplinary actions. (Paras 12, 13, 24)
(B) Natural Justice - The court reiterated that the right to a fair hearing includes access to the enquiry report and the opportunity to respond to any points of disagreement. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, faced disciplinary action resulting in a penalty of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect, following a charge-sheet alleging misconduct. The enquiry report found him not guilty, yet the penalty was imposed without due process.
Findings of Court:
The penalty order and appellate order were quashed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issues included the failure to provide the enquiry report and the lack of communication regarding points of disagreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority must provide the enquiry report and communicate any disagreements to the employee, as per the regulations, to ensure fairness.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(ANAND SHARMA, J.)
1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity and propriety of penalty order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Chairman cum Managing Director of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., (for short, ‘RRVPNL’) as well as the appellate order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Secretary (Admn.) R.V.P.N. Ltd., whereby penalty of stoppage of one Annual Grade Increment without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner and subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition and has stated while he was holding the post of Assistant Engineer, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.06.2018 under Regulation No.7 of the Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation-1962 of RRVPNL (for short, ‘the CCA Rules’) levelling as many four charges in respect of his integrity and devotion of duty as well as highlighting his negligence, dereliction of duty and violations committed by him while discharging the duties. Petitioner stated that disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 18.06.2018, however, copy of the enquiry report was never served upon him and without serving copy of enquiry report and without calling for any representation of the petitioner, penalty order dated 24.08.2022 has been issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which is clear cut violation of the procedure contemplated under the CCA Rules as well as is against the principles of natural justice.
3. It was further stated by the petitioner that subsequently after passing the penalty order, he obtained copy of enquiry report, which would reveal that after thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner-delinquent were not established. The petitioner has further stated that despite the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioner not guilty, the Disciplinary Authority, although, had right to disagree with findings of enquiry officer had not drawn any points of disagreement and such points of disagreement, if any, were never conveyed to the petitioner, which is a serious lapse of part of Disciplinary Authority and without following due process, order of penalty was passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
4. The petitioner has further stated that the aforesaid penalty order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority and apart from other issues, the ground of not furnishing enquiry report as well as the point that despite the enquiry report being in favour of the petitioner, points of disagreement were not communicated to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority were also raised in the memo of appeal for consideration of the appellate authority.
5. However, as per the petitioner, the appellate authority did not consider any of the grounds raised in the memo of appeal and without considering the material points raised by the petitioner, the appellate authority in quite mechanical manner has confirmed the penalty order. As per the petitioner, under such circumstances, the penalty order as well as the appellate authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside.
6. Petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 and has submitted that after considering the earlier judgments and even the constitutional amendment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a clear verdict that the delinquent employee is entitled for copy of enquiry report and to submit his representation against the enquiry report.
7. To oppose the petition, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition mentioning therein that as per the Regulation there was no requirement to furnish copy of enquiry report. However, before passing the penalty order personal hearing was aff
