The central legal point established is that the delinquent officer is entitled to a personal hearing when the Disciplinary Authority deviates from the Enquiry Officer's decision, as per the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.154, Highways & Small Ports (HL2) Department dated 31.08.2009, G.O.(D) No.215, Highways & Small Ports (HK) Department dated 14.10.2010 and Letter No.15710/HL2/2013/1 Highways & Small Ports Department dated 22.01.2014 and to quash the same.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Manadamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in Letter No.1083/Confidential1/2013 dated 10.06.2013 and in Memo No.307/2013/A1 issued by the third respondent dated 21.06.2013 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Divisional Engineer by including his name in the panel of the year 2007-08 without reference to the punishment of censure imposed on the petitioner in G.O.(D) No.154, Highways & Small Ports (HL2) Department dated 31.08.2009 and promote the petitioner as Divisional Engineer, Highways notionally and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

Common Order:

1. Based on certain levelled charges, the petitioner herein while serving as an Assistant Divisional Engineer in the respondents/Highways Department, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 21.07.2008 had held the charges against the petitioner as “not proved”. However, the first respondent herein, through a letter dated 07.11.2008, had deviated from the views of the Enquiry Officer and called for explanation of the petitioner. On consideration of the petitioner's further representation dated 30.12.2008, the first respondent had censured the petitioner through the impugned order dated 31.08.2009. On review, the order was confirmed on 22.01.2013. These orders are under challenge in W.P.No.16190 of 2014.

2. In the meantime, in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the currency of punishment, the petitioner was deferred for promotions to higher posts and when he had sought for such promotions, the first respondent herein had quoted the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, as well as currency of punishment and rejected the petitioner's claim for promotion through an order dated 10.06.2013, which was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent through order dated 21.06.2013. These orders are under challenge in W.P.No.17077 of 2014.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions being one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of, through a common order.

4. Pending the Writ Petitions, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016.

5. When the Disciplinary Authority had chosen to defer from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, apart from issuing a notice calling for explanation on the views expressed by him for deferment, no personal hearing was given to the petitioner, before the punishment was awarded. This procedure adopted, is opposed to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84, as well as in Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1999 (7) SCC 739. The aforesaid two decisions were referred to, in a subsequent decision in Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, ITI Ltd., and Another reported in 2006 (9) SCC 440, whereby in all the aforesaid decisions, the principles laid down were that, when a Disciplinary Authority deviates from the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Principles of Natural Justice requires to be followed and the delinquent is to be given an opportunity of personal hearing, before a final decision is taken. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

“10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the consistent view taken by t