D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent no.1 of the Writ Petition being W.P. (S) No. 538 of 2013. The Writ Petition was preferred by respondent no.1 challenging the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 24 th December, 2012, whereby, punishment of withholding six increments with cumulative effect, and no promotion to respondent no.1 (original petitioner) in future was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 18 th July, 2013 and, hence, original respondent no.1 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Factual Matrix:

Respondent no.1 is an original petitioner. He was serving as Junior Engineer with this appellant.

Because of negligence on the part of respondent no.1, as alleged by this appellant, a charge sheet was issued on 20 th September, 2011. For holding enquiry, Enquiry Officer was appointed.

After taking into consideration oral as well as documentary evidences on record, the Enquiry Officer gave his report on 2nd November, 2012 and it has been concluded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the delinquent-respondent no.1 (original petitioner) have not been proved.

Without giving any second show-cause notice, which is required if the Disciplinary Authority is differing with the Enquiry Officer's report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 24 th December, 2012 and the punishment of withholding six increments with cumulative effect, and no promotion to be given to the delinquent, in future was inflicted upon respondent no.1.

This punishment order was challenged by respondent no.1 (original petitioner) by way of a Writ Petition being W.P. (S) No. 538 of 2013, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 18 th July, 2013 and, hence, original respondent no.1 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Reasons:

3. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that for the alleged misconduct committed by respondent no.1 (original petitioner), charge sheet was issued on 20 th September, 2011. The Enquiry Officer was appointed. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidences on record, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against respondent no.1 (original petitioner) were not proved. The charge sheet is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and the Enquiry Officer's report is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the supplementary affidavit filed by this appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal.

4. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority was not agreeing with the Enquiry Officer's report.

5. Without giving any second show-cause notice and without giving any reasons why the Disciplinary Authority is differing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, directly punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dated 24 th December, 2012 of withholding six increments with cumulative effect, and no promotion is to be given to the delinquent, in future. This is not permissible in the eye of law. This runs counter to several decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84, in paragraphs 18 and 19, which read as under:

“18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the enquiry is conducted by the enquiry officer, his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with the decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the enquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an enquiry, an opportunity of hear