Natural justice requires meaningful opportunity for defense in disciplinary inquiries; failure to adhere justifies annulment of punitive orders.

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 relief(s):

“1. To quash the impugned punishment order dated 05.11.2012 and Appellate order dated 27.03.2014 read with order dated 28.02.2014 as Annexure no. A-1 & A-1A to this OA with all consequential benefits.

2. To reinstate the applicant in service with continuity in service, seniority, promotion and all other attending benefits viz. monetary benefits 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. Tersely put the case of the applicant is that applicant was employee of the Respondent Department. A charge memorandum dated 09.09.2011 was issued to the applicant by Disciplinary Authority for unauthorized absence for the period from 24.04.2010 to 16.08.2011. Applicant denied the charges. Disciplinary Authority without examining the matter, passed a cryptic and illegal punishment order on 05.11.2012 retiring the applicant compulsorily. Appeal preferred against the punishment order also came to be dismissed.

Hence, this OA.

4. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that a charge-sheet dated 09.09.2011 was issued to the applicant to which the applicant submitted reply simply denying the charges leveled against him. Further stated that during the inquiry, applicant admitted his guilt by saying that he did not inform about his absence. The Inquiry officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority and on the basis thereof, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice alongwith the findings of inquiry officer requiring the applicant to submit his reply. Applicant submitted his reply on 08.09.2012 stating therein that he is not in a position to serve the railways on account of his health and as such he may be given voluntary retirement. The applicant has nothing said regarding the charges levelled against him nor did he submit any defence. On the basis of report of inquiry officer, the Disciplinary authority after going through the entire records, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the applicant were fully proved and on the basis thereof, the disciplinary authority vide impugned punishment order dated 05.11.2012 has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the applicant. Against the punishment order, the applicant preferred an appeal which too was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2014 after dealing all the points raised by the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Further stated that the impugned orders are perfectly legal and valid and as such they do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence, no interference is called for by this Tribunal.

5. Applicant by filing rejoinder affidavit reiterated the averments made in the Original application. It has been further stated that due to bad health, he represented to the competent authority for voluntary retirement but without paying any heed, respondents have passed the impugned punishment order.

6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that due to defective eye sight and hands fracture, applicant submitted a representation requesting the enquiry officer to retire the applicant voluntarily but inquiry officer neither examined the witnesses called for nor proceeded ahead with the proceedings and without completing the process, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority.

Further submission is