IMPORTANT POINT
A disciplinary authority must provide an opportunity for hearing when it disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings, and any punishment not prescribed by statutory rules is without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dated 31.07.2009 has been assailed with a direction to disburse the arrears which has been withheld in pursuance of the punishment of withholding of one annual increment.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, read as under:

The petitioner retired as Meter Reader on 31.05.2014 at the relevant time he was working at Electric Supply Ranchi.

Against the petitioner, departmental proceeding was started vide officer order no.694 dated 19.04.2008 as per which altogether 3 charges had been leveled against the petitioner. One enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner after getting information in that context had appeared and filed his reply along all relevant documents.

That the said Enquiring Officer after scrutinizing all relevant points as well as documents brought in his notice by the petitioner exonerated the petitioner from all three charges as apparent from enquiring report submitted by him on 22.07.2008

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority differing from finding given by Enquiring officer had passed three punishments against him First for stopping one annual increment with accumulative effect. Second giving warning to be cautious in future and third he will be entitled to get only substantial allowances during suspension period as would be apparent from order no.1312 dated 31.07.2009.

The petitioner has filed his second show cause in compliance of the order of the said authority.

That in the light of the show cause filed by the petitioner delinquent the said disciplinary authority as passed final order confirming the said punishment as aforementioned apparent from the order no. 1312 dated 31.07.2009 wherein also the disciplinary authority passed order without discussing and analyzing reason from differing the finding given by enquiring officer as apparent from the said order.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 31.07.2009 preferred Appeal before the Chairman cum Appellate Authority JSE?., Ranchi on 28.08.2009 but till date no order has been passed as yet though time to time he had approached the competent authority and he had also submitted representation.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioner while working as Meter Reader in the Electricity Supply Ranchi was proceeded departmentally for commission of some irregularity. The memorandum of charge was served followed by the appointment of enquiry officer with the direction upon the petitioner to appear before the enquiry proceeding.

The petitioner had appeared in the enquiry proceeding and defendend the charge. The enquiry officer has found none of the charges proved. The disciplinary authority although inflicted the punishment vide order dated 31.07.2009 by acting as an enquiry officer by proving the charge on its own and showing difference with the finding/conclusion of the charge being found not to be proved by the enquiry officer.

The disciplinary authority passed the following punishments:

1- Jh flag dh ,d okf"kZd osru o`f} vlap;kRed çHkko ls jksdh tkrh gSA
2- Jh flag dks Hkfo"; esa lps"B jgus dh psrkouh nh tkrh gSA
3- Jh flag dks fuyacu vof/k esa thou ;kiu HkÙkk ds vfrfjDr dqN Hkh ns; ugha gksxk] ijUrq fuyacu vof/k dh x.kuk flQZ lsoksÙkj ykHkksa ds fy, dh tk,xhA

4. The punishment nos. (1) and (3) are to be considered since the same pertains to monetary relief but so far as the punishment no.(2) is concerned, the same has lost its force since the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

5. The ground has been agitated by Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that once the enquiry officer has found none of the charges proved then it is no business of the disciplinary authority to substitute its views without taking recourse of providing opportunity of he