When a disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of an inquiry officer, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement in the show cause notice and provide the delinquent employee an opportunity to be heard, as failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the order dated 01.09.2016 Annexure P-1 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the imposition of fine of Rs.45,000 under the provisions of Rule 39(2)(b)(1) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2013 (in short ‘the Regulation of 2013) has been rejected by the respondent No.1.

2. The relevant facts in the present case, in brief, are that the petitioner, Mukund Lal Sahu, was posted as a Clerk-cum-Cashier at Surgi Branch of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank from 10.12.2004 to 13.06.2007. On 30.03.2013, a charge sheet alleging irregularities and misconduct during that period was issued to the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner did not perform his duties as a bank employee with honesty and integrity and he failed to take necessary measures to safeguard the bank's interests, thereby putting the bank at financial risk. On 05.05.2013, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet stating that he was not responsible for any misappropriation of the ledger or putting the bank at financial risk.

3. The enquiry went on and ultimately an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 03.02.2015. According to the enquiry report,

“the charges were found to be true, but the entries in the ledger were made by Keshav Ram Sahu, the messenger-cum-sweeper, on the instructions of the Branch Manager and this fact has also been admitted by Keshav Ram Sahu in his testimony. This does not clearly indicate that the accused employee, Mukund Lal Sahu, did not perform his duties with honesty and integrity.”

4. Meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2015. On 22.01.2016, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner mentioning that

“the copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 24.07.2015 to which the petitioner submitted his defence/reply on 24.08.2015. After examining his defense statement, the departmental inquiry proceedings, the inquiry report and the documents/evidence presented during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has decided to impose fine of Rs.45,000 on petitioner under clause 39(2)(b)(1) of the Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank Officer and Employee Service Regulations, 2013. The petitioner was directed to reply within 15 days as to why he should not be punished with the proposed penalty”.

5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 18.02.2016. However, on 14.03.2016, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Respondent No.2 disagreeing with the view taken by the Enquiry Officer, held that the petitioner did not perform his duties with honesty and integrity and imposed a fine of Rs.45,000/- on him under the provisions of the Regulations of 2013. Against such imposition of fine, the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.1267/2016 before this High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2016 with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the respondent No.1. The petitioner’s appeal was subsequently rejected by the respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 01.09.2016 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reason/explanation has been given by the Disciplinary Authority in the show cause notice for not accepting the view given by the Enquiry Officer in his report. In the absence of any reason or ground in the show cause notice, it amounts to an empty forma