Disciplinary authorities must observe principles of natural justice when recording disagreements with inquiry reports, particularly by providing tentative reasons and an opportunity for representation.

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(i) To set aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (the Commissioner Of Customs, Lucknow).

(ii) To set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 03/2020 issued under C. No. II (8) Pr. CCO/Lko/Vig./ Appeal/68/ 2019/112 dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner, Customs & Central CGST, Lucknow Zone Lucknow.

(iii) To pass such other order/relief, that deems fit and proper to your Honour, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was proceeded against departmentally under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS(CCA) Rules, hereafter] with the issue of charge sheet dated 16.03.2017. Two other officials were also implicated. An enquiry ensued and the enquiry officer, vide his report dated 06.07.2018, found Article I of the charge as not proved; he also found Article II as not proved except for the charged officials not informing their seniors in time. The disciplinary authority remitted the case back to the enquiry officer for further enquiry into five specific points and the enquiry officer submitted a supplementary report dated 30.01.2019 essentially sticking to his findings submitted earlier. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry and imposed penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years vide order dated 22.05.2019. The appellate authority reduced the punishment to reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year vide order dated 19.02.2020. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant contends that prejudice has been caused to him by not supplying two out of the fourteen additional documents he had asked for. He further contends that the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment without considering the facts and evidence on record and that the appellate authority has also passed order without due application of mind.

4. On the other hand, the respondents contend that additional document, i.e., letter C. No. 238 dated 15.03.2017, was not supplied as it was neither relevant nor would it have been in public interest to disclose it. They further contend that the disciplinary and the appellate authorities have passed speaking orders after considering all aspects of the matter.

5. We have heard both the parties.

6.1 We first address the issue of provision of additional documents to the applicant. A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that initially eleven additional documents were sought by the applicant mentioning reasons for their relevancy to which the enquiry officer agreed. When the additional documents were provided, there were references to certain other documents therein which were not provided. Again, on demand of the defence assistant, these documents were provided, except a letter C. No. 238 dated 15.03.2017 which was referred to in the advice of ADG Vigilance dated 16.03.2017 for the reason that the document was neither relevant to the case of the defendants nor was it in the public interest to provide the document. The enquiry officer, then, decided to proceed further with the enquiry. We find from the enquiry report that the applicant neither pressed his claim for production of letter C. No. 238 dated 15.03.2017 nor did he explain why it might have been relevant to his defence. Given this position, the applicant’s reference to the document not provided appears to be more of an afterthought and the applicant has failed to make out what prejudice has been caused to him by withholding of the document in question, in our view.

6.2 What bothers us, however, is another iss