The disciplinary authority must disclose reasons for disagreement with an inquiry officer's findings to uphold principles of natural justice.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 13.3.2023 passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner against imposition of punishment vide order dated 24.3.2008.

2. It transpires that disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner by the disciplinary authority with service of charge- sheet dated 19.1.2006. The inquiry officer ultimately submitted a report in which he found charge nos.1,2 and 3 not to be proved. Charge no.4 was in respect of the temporary embezzlement in which the inquiry officer found the petitioner to be guilty. It transpires that a notice dated 12.11.2007 was issued by the disciplinary authority who had disagreed with the conclusion of the inquiry officer with regard to exoneration of the writ petitioner in respect of charge nos.1,2 and 3. Writ petitioner submitted a reply to this notice whereafter the major punishment of reversion to basic pay was imposed by the disciplinary authority upon the petitioner.

3. Learned Single Judge has found the procedure for imposition of such punishment to be unsustainable, inasmuch as proper opportunity was denied to the writ petitioner to defend himself. Thus aggrieved, the State is before us challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge.

4. We have heard learned State counsel as well as Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner and have perused the materials on record.

5. The facts, as have been noticed above, are not in issue. We have perused the show cause notice dated 12.11.2007, issued by the disciplinary authority, whereby he had disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer while exonerating the delinquent employee of charge nos.1,2 and 3. This notice only records the reasons for which the inquiry officer had exonerated the delinquent employee. Absolutely no reasons have been disclosed by the disciplinary authority for disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of the writ petitioner that in the absence of reasons disclosed to the delinquent employee, by the disciplinary authority, for disagreeing with the opinion of the inquiry officer, the delinquent employee was denude of opportunity to explain the circumstances or his defense in that regard.

6. Recording of reasons in the show cause notice for disagreeing with the opinion of inquiry officer has a definite purpose to subserve. It gives an opportunity to the delinquent employee to offer his explanation on the issues that have weighed with the disciplinary authority. In a case where the disciplinary authority does not record reasons for his disagreement with the opinion of the inquiry officer the delinquent employee will be denuded of his right to effectively explain his defense regarding reasons of disagreement. The law in that regard has been settled by the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra 1998 (7) SCC 84, wherein the Court has clearly observed that reasons of disagreement must be disclosed to the delinquent employee in order to enable him to effectively meet the material which is proposed to be relied upon against him. Para 17 and 19 of the judgment are relevant for the present purposes and are reproduced hereinafter:-

"17........The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer.