Disciplinary authorities must provide clear, written reasons when disagreeing with inquiry officer's findings and must afford the charged officer an opportunity to respond before imposing punishment.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Mohanty, learned AGA for State - Opposite Parties.

2. The Petitioner is a serving Inspector of Police and he was proceeded with departmentally in CID CB Proceeding No.02 of 2016. The charge was for not carrying the instructions imparted by the supervising officer in course of investigation of a sensational case of rape and murder by the Petitioner while acting as the investigating officer in CID CB, Odisha Police. An enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted his report dated 29th November, 2017 holding that the delinquent (Petitioner) is not guilty of the charges.

3. The disciplinary authority, who is the DG and IG of Police, Odisha disagreed with the finding of the enquiring officer holding him not guilty. Accordingly, the Petitioner was asked to submit his reply to such disagreement of the disciplinary authority and has ultimately been imposed with penalty of one black mark, vide impugned order dated 6th August, 2019 at Annexure-8. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the same was also rejected by the Government at Annexure-10.

4. Mr. Das, learned counsel submits for the Petitioner that the reason of disagreement as stated by the disciplinary authority is not in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 49 to the Odisha Police Manual Rules and therefore, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is unsustainable.

5. As seen from Annexure-4, the disciplinary authority has passed the order asking the delinquent officer to submit his reply to the disagreement to the finding of the enquiry officer. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced below:-

“After conducting the proceeding enquiry, the Enquiring Officer has submitted his findings holding the charged officer “Not guilty” of the charges.

The charged officer was charged with gross misconduct, dereliction of duty for failing to comply with many of the instructions imparted by supervising officer in a case of Crime Branch investigated by him. The orders / instructions and their non compliance have been duly exhibited during the proceeding. Despite this, the Enquiring Officer has held the charged officer not guilty.

For the aforesaid reason, I am not inclined to agree with the findings of the Enquiring Officer. The charged officer is called upon to submit his explanation / representation if any, on the findings of the Enquiring Officer and the observation of the disciplinary authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order for further action, failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to represent or explain in the matter. A copy of the findings be served on the charged officer under acknowledgment.”

6. It is thus seen that the only reason stated by the disciplinary authority that though the orders/instructions and their non- compliance have been duly exhibited during the proceeding, but the enquiry officer held the delinquent not guilty. In other words, as per the reasons stated by the disciplinary authority the delinquent should have been held guilty for the charge since the orders / instructions of the supervisor have been exhibited including their non-compliance, in course of the proceeding.

7. The language depicted in Appendix 49 is clear to the effect that the disciplinary authority must record the reasons in writing for his disagreement on such points against the enquiry officer’s finding.

8. In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra , AIR 1998 SC 2713 Hon’ble Supreme Court have explained as follows:-

“18. Under Regulation 6 the inquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the inqui