ORDER

Paul,J. --1. This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the order dated 17.9.2019 passed in W.P. No.9838/2018, whereby learned Writ Court directed the department to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations for promotion. In addition, learned Writ Court directed to grant interest on delayed payment of retiral dues with further direction to pay arrears of 7th Pay Commission.

2. Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer assailed the order of learned Writ Court on twin grounds. Firstly, it is argued that the main reason for interference with the punishment of censure dated 13.3.2018 was that against the Enquiry Officer's report, the petitioner was not given any opportunity by issuance of notice by the disciplinary authority. He submits that the disciplinary authority issued a notice along with the Enquiry Officer's report and therefore, this reason for interference on the punishment cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Secondly, learned Writ Court has committed an error in granting interest on delayed payment of retiral dues.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the delay in releasing the retiral dues was because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. On conclusion of such proceedings by imposition of punishment on 13.3.2018 (Annexure-P/10), the retiral dues were released. Hence, imposition of interest is without there being any justification.

4. Shri A. K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel supported the impugned order.

5. No other point is pressed by the parties. We have heard the parties at length.

6. Before dealing with the points raised, it is apposite to mention the relevant facts. The employee was served with a charge-sheet on 30.7.2010 under Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the “CCA Rules”). The employee denied the charges in toto. Hence, enquiry and presenting officers were appointed. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 3.6.2016. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent No.1 from the charges. The said report was communicated to the respondent No.1 with communication dated 22.6.2017. The respondent No.1 filed response stating that the Enquiry Officer's report is in his favour and he does not wish to say anything more. The original petitioner preferred an application on 5.8.2017 requesting the department to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. The same is followed by notice for demand of justice and other representations. The departmental enquiry ended with a punishment of “censure” on 13.3.2018. The employee retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2017.

7. Learned Writ Court rightly recorded that the Enquiry Officer's report was indeed supplied to the employee but the disciplinary authority has not taken pains to prepare a discordant note and put the employee to notice along with his reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report.

8. In catena of judgments, the apex Court opined that findings of the Enquiry Officer are not binding on the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of material available on record. If the disciplinary authority intends to disagree with the findings, the only course open to him is to prepare a note of disagreement on the basis of evidence on record and furnish the same to the applicant to enable him to show cause against the same. The apex Court in this regard opined as under in the following judgments :-

Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84]

“...whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings.” (Emphasis supplied)

Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra [(1999) 7 SC