Disciplinary authorities must provide an opportunity to represent when disagreeing with an inquiry officer’s findings, as per principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vie Annexure-9.

2. Limiting the submissions involving the writ petition, Sri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the inquiry report is submitted exonerating the delinquent therein, the ‘X” functioning as the Disciplinary Authority differing from the view of the Inquiry Officer, issued a show cause notice just 2 days ahead of his transfer to another place and action involving such differing opinions was without affording opportunity of hearing to the delinquent-petitioner while functioning as Disciplinary Authority took final decision on imposition of penalty on the petitioner. It is on the premises of decision differing from the view of the Inquiry Officer being taken by ‘X’, Sri Das, learned counsel submitted that ‘X’ not being available for undertaking the exercise of Disciplinary Authority, ‘Y’ who has joined as Disciplinary Authority ought to have given a re-thought on the report of the Inquiry Officer in absence of which the final order of Inquiry Authority vitiates. Further, looking to the Disciplinary Authority differing from the view of the Inquiry Officer and a fresh decision since is required to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, Sri Das, learned counsel contended that in the interest of justice, an opportunity of hearing before decision is taken by the subsequent Disciplinary Authority shall also be warranted. To support his case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two decisions in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunja Behari Misra , AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2713 and in the case of Yoginath D.Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another , AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3734. Referring to paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 in the Case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunja Behari Misra (supra) and paragraph-31 in the case of Yoginath D.Bagde (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify the applicability of such decisions to the case at hand and subsequently made a prayer for allowing the writ petition and thereby passing appropriate order.

3. In his opposition, Sri Pattanaik, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties while not disputing the fact that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the view of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has taken a different view that of the Inquiry Officer, further also not disputing that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the ‘X’ Disciplinary Authority just prior to 2 days ahead of his transfer from the establishment debarring him from continuing as a Disciplinary Authority any further and also not disputing that there has been no opportunity of hearing by the ‘Y’ Disciplinary Authority undertaking the exercise of Disciplinary Authority but, however, contended that for the both actions being undertaken by the Disciplinary Authority, the proceeding undertaken by the ‘Y’ Disciplinary Authority cannot be found to be faulted. Sri Pattanaik, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties also opposes the entertainbility of the writ petition on the premises that the petitioner not preferring the statutory appeal available to him. Further, taking this Court to the findings of the Y disciplinary Authority, Sri Pattanaik, learned counsel also attempted to justify the impugned action involved herein.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and proceeding to decide the legal aspect involving the matter, taking the legal aspect invo