Disciplinary authorities must provide clear reasoning for departing from inquiry reports and allow the accused an opportunity to respond, ensuring fairness and compliance with natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

(Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak, J.) :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby punishment of reduction in the pay-scale of petitioner by one stage has been awarded and further direction was issued to recover 20% of the awarded amount plus interest from the petitioner.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order and memorial dated 20.09.2011 and 16.10.2012 respectively, by which the order of punishment has been affirmed.

3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner while working as Development Officer at Sindri Branch on 04.10.2000, without physical inspection of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. BR-17E-7155, accepted proposal form ignoring guidelines of the respondent-Company. As a consequence, a claim case was preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased who died in accident in which the respondent-Company was saddled with compensation amount of Rs.5,25,000/- by the Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal. For the said misconduct and negligence towards duties, a preliminary enquiry was made by the respondent-Company and after enquiry, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 26.12.2005 asking him to submit his reply within a period of 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply, however, as the same was not satisfactory regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by appointing Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.09.2008 exonerating the petitioner from the guilty of the charges. Thereafter, vide letter dated 05.02.2009, 2nd show-cause notice along with copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and he was directed to submit his reply on the same. However, being not satisfied by reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment dated 16.09.2009, which was later on affirmed in the appeal and memorial preferred by the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are perverse and liable to be set aside because same has been passed without proper application of mind. The order passed by the respondents are totally unreasonable and unwarranted and against the settled principle of natural justice because the petitioner has been punished for the offence which was not committed on his part. Learned counsel further argues that though the Inquiry Officer has exonerated him from the charges but Disciplinary Authority without assigning any reason has differed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and has imposed upon the petitioner which is not tenable in law and is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned orders are fit to be set aside on the ground that Inquiry Officer has fully exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him by giving a detailed enquiry report and the disciplinary authority, though differs with the reasoned enquiry report but without assigning any valid and cogent reason for differing with the enquiry report, passed the impugned order in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment orders are cryptic, as neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have applied their own independent mind nor considered the reply submitted by the petitioner, before passing the impugned orders.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that due to negligence on the part of the petitioner, the Insurance Company has suffered huge financial loss inasmuch as if the petitioner would have followed the rules of the Insurance Co., the vehicle in question would not have been insured and the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal could not hav