Violation of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings

ORDER

PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“1.

To quash the impugned punishment order dated 30.06.2009 and Appellate Order dated 30.09.2010 contained as Annexure no. A-1 and A-2 to this OA with all consequential benefits.

2. To release the consequential benefits withheld due to operation of impugned order dated 30.06.2009 and 30.09.2010 such as increment, pay fixation and promotion/upgradation etc.

3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

4. Cost of the present case.”

3. It is the case of the applicant is that applicant was initially appointed as Office Assistant in the Respondent Department on 19.06.1996. In 2007, respondent no. 3 issued memo of charges to the applicant. After conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held that charges leveled against applicant were found not proved.

On 19.05.2009, the Disciplinary Authority in gross violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kunj Bihari instead of supplying disagreement note with tentative reason, gave the disagreement note with definite findings and with closed & predetermined guilt of notion.

On 30.06.2009, Disciplinary authority passed the impugned punishment order whereby reduced the pay of the applicant to lower stage by two stage for two years without cumulative effect.

Appeal preferred against said punishment order dated 30.06.2009 also came to be dismissed by appellate authority on 30.09.2010. Hence, this OA.

4. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and as such he issued a disagreement note vide letter dated 10.05.2009 and a copy of the same was served upon applicant requiring him to submit his representation. The disciplinary authority considering the charges leveled against the applicant in the charge-sheet, report of the inquiry officer and the defence representation of the applicant came to the conclusion that on the basis of documentary evidence the charges were found proved. Hence, order under challenge in the present OA is legally perfect.

5. Applicant by filing rejoinder affidavit reiterated the averments made in the Original application. Further stated that disciplinary authority submitted his disagreement note with predetermined guilt of notion and just to punish the applicant.

Disciplinary authority failed to taken into consideration that the findings of the inquiry officer are based on appreciation of the evidence led during the course of enquiry.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that findings of the Inquiry Officer recorded in the inquiry report (Annexure A-6) clearly noted that the charges leveled against delinquent employee Indra Dev Yadav, Dak Assistant, Pratapgarh not found proved.

Further submitted that disciplinary authority in his disagreement note held that charges are proved against the applicant. In the disagreement note, tentative reason has not been given rather with closed & predetermined mind findings have been given, hence, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kunj Bihari (surpa), impugned punishment order deserves to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and contended that in disagreement note (Annexure A-7) there are only tentative reasons for disagreement and findings are not definite, hence, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant are not sustainable in the eyes of law. OA deserves to be dismissed.

8. In Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations:

“The result of th