Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring that an opportunity for a fair hearing is provided before final decisions are made.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)

1. Brief facts that arise for consideration in the present O.A. are that the applicant while working as DCIO was inflicted with a chargesheet on 25.07.2017. An Inquiry Officer (IO) was appointed. The applicant duly participated in the inquiry proceedings and the IO exonerated the applicant from the charges by way of his report dated 19.01.2018. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) issued a disagreement note on 06.06.2019, which was provided to the applicant and the applicant submitted his representation. After considering the representation of the applicant and the advice of the UPSC, the penalty order dated 18.03.2020 was issued by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-

“ (i) To quash and set aside the impugned the order No. 1/Vig./2017 (87)-630 dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure A-1) with all consequential benefits, including opening of the Sealed Cover containing recommendations of the DPC for promotion of the applicant to the post of Assistant Director.

(ii) To quash dissenting opinion of the disciplinary authority as conveyed to the applicant vide Memo No. 1/Vig./2017 (87)/1370 dated 06.06.2019 (Annexure A-02)

(iii) To quash the Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant vide Memo No. 1/Vig./2017 (87) dated 25.07.2017 (Annexure A-03)

(iv) to allow the O.A. with costs.

(v) Pass any further orders as this hon’ble Tribunal may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Mr. Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant raises two grounds. First, that the Disagreement Note is not tentative rather it is a decisional order. The DA while passing the order dated 06.06.2019 has recorded "Article of Charges stand proved beyond doubt against the charged officer". Therefore, while extending opportunity to the applicant the DA has already arrived at the conclusion that the charges stood confirmed. Second, the impugned order has been issued in the name of the President; therefore, the applicant has been deprived of an opportunity to prefer his appeal.

3. Reply has been filed by the respondents.

4. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the O.A. He draws strength from para 4.8 and 4.9 of the reply which read as under:-

“Para's 4.8 & 4.9 That the contents of the Para’s 4.8 & 4.9 are wrong and hence denied. It is submitted that our submissions in brief facts of the case are reiterated. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant only on the basis of overwhelming evidence on record and in accordance with the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As per Rule 15(2), the Disciplinary Authority shall forward a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own "tentative reasons" for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of Charge to the Govt. servant for submitting his representation. The primary requirement on part of DA is to give only "tentative reasons" and not "tentative conclusions" particularly when the findings of the IO in its inquiry report is definitive. Moreover, DA in its disagreement note has conveyed that the "preponderance of probability is that Shri Prem Raj was involved in an unauthorised immigration clearance of a passenger, namely, Prabhjot Kaur, who was travelling on fake Residence Permit, at Amritsar Airport on. 30.12. 16".

"In view of above and from the evidence adduced during the course of the inquiry the charges against Shri Prem Raj stand proved’ which are tentative in nature. The applicant representation was duly considered by the DA and finally a speaking order was passed by the President. Moreover, minor technical issue cannot vitiate the entire proceedings which was held strictly as per CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and Article 311 of the Constitution and the applicant was given full opportunity to defend himself during the course of inquiry. The disciplinary procee