Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural requirements and ensure natural justice, especially when disagreeing with inquiry findings.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Mathur, J.

1. Heard Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms Parul Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 18.05.2022 along with the endorsement letter dated 02.08.2023 whereby petitioner has been visited with major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Further prayer for a direction to concerned authorities to extend all the incidental and consequential service benefits withheld due to impugned punishment order has also been sought.

3. It has been submitted that an accident occurred on 19.07.2020 between a private vehicle and a private bus bearing registration no.UP17-AT4782. In pursuance of such an accident, petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 21.06.2021 containing five charges with the primary charge that the aforesaid private bus had been inspected by petitioner in the course of his duties as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) in the year 2018 and a certificate of fitness was also issued by him which was valid from 24.02.2018 to 23.02.2020 and there were certain omissions on the part of petitioner due to which fitness certificate should not have been issued. Charge No.1 pertained to the offending bus having 12 more seats than were permissible; Charge no.2 pertained to excess length of the bus by 1000 m.m; Charge no.3 pertained to discrepancy in overhang of bus by 1080 m.m; Charge no.4 pertained to rear screen mirror being hidden by steel body and Charge no.5 pertained generally to petitioner issuing a certificate against provisions.

4. It is submitted that petitioner replied to the aforesaid charge sheet in letter dated 07.03.2022 denying charges levelled against him with the submission that discrepancies indicated in the charges were not present at the time of inspection and may have occurred subsequently with the connivance of bus owner. It is also submitted that after inquiry proceedings, inquiry report dated 24.05.2022 was submitted exonerating petitioner from all the charges whereafter a show cause notice dated 27.07.2022 was issued by the disciplinary authority indicating his disagreement with the inquiry report. It is submitted that aforesaid show cause notice was also replied to whereafter impugned punishment order has been passed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the proceedings subsequent to submission of inquiry report are in violation of settled law as well as Rule 9 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1999’) inasmuch as show cause notice clearly indicates the disciplinary authority having made up its mind with regard to alleged misconduct of petitioner and also does not indicate any reasoning for disagreeing with the inquiry report.

6. It is further submitted that a perusal of aforesaid show cause notice would indicate that on the pretext of disagreeing with inquiry report, the disciplinary authority in fact has merely reiterated charges levelled against petitioner. It is also submitted that even in the punishment order, aspects on which petitioner was exonerated in inquiry proceedings have not been considered. It is, therefore, submitted that for all practical purposes, impugned order is non speaking and indicates non application of mind by the disciplinary authority.