Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 156
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J
G L SAGAR – Appellant
Versus
EDCIL (INDIA) LTD AND ANR – Respondent
W.P.(C)-10023/2016
A Disagreement Note in disciplinary proceedings must be tentative, allowing the employee a fair opportunity to respond, as per principles of natural justice and constitutional rights.
Headnote:(A) ED.CIL's (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 - Rule 25 - Disciplinary proceedings - The Petitioner challenged the dismissal order based on a Disagreement Note which was found to be conclusive rather than tentative, violating principles of natural justice as established in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 7 SCC 739. (Paras 11, 20, 23)
(B) Right to be heard - The court emphasized that a delinquent employee must be given a chance to respond to a tentative Disagreement Note before a final decision is made, as per Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a General Manager at ED.CIL, faced multiple disciplinary charges leading to dismissal. Previous writ petitions were filed challenging the process, particularly the lack of a proper Disagreement Note.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the dismissal order and remanded the matter for a fresh Disagreement Note, emphasizing adherence to legal principles.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Disagreement Note was tentative or conclusive, impacting the fairness of the disciplinary process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Disagreement Note must be tentative to allow the employee a fair opportunity to respond, as established in prior judgments.
Result: Writ petition partially allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenged dismissal (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner joined respondent (Para 2) |
| 3. termination and reinstatement (Para 3) |
| 4. inquiry officer's report (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. respondents' defense of disagreement note (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's examination of disagreement note (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. tentative opinion requirement (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. writ petition partially allowed (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J.
1. This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner laying a challenge to order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority as also Disagreement Note dated 05.05.2016 issued by Respondent No.2. Writ of mandamus is sought for a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner on the post of Chief General Manager with consequential benefits.
2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary is that Petitioner joined Respondent No.1/EDCIL (India) Ltd. and was promoted to the post of Manager in 1993 on which post he continued till March, 1995 when he was selected as Manager (Project Executive). In 2000, Petitioner was selected to the post of GM (Projects) and was confirmed on the post in July, 2001.
3. Petitioner avers that his services were suddenly terminated vide order dated 01.04.2003 which order was challenged by him in writ petition being CWP 3009/2003 before this Court. On 27.01.2004, matter was adjourned to 25.02.2004 by the Court, observing that if no counter affidavit was filed, allegations of the Petitioner will be treated as correct and writ will be disposed of on the next date. Before the next date of hearing, Respondents passed an order on 04.02.2004 withdrawing the termination order dated 01.04.2003 and Petitioner was permitted to join on 06.02.2004. In view of this order, writ petition was disposed of on 25.02.2004 as infructuous and Respondents were directed to pay to the Petitioner his wages w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 06.02.2004 as per the applicable rules.
4. On subsequent applications being filed by the respective parties, the Court reiterated its direction to the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner his entire salary and emoluments within 07 days with interest @ 9% for the delay in payment vide order dated 27.04.2004. Respondents again issued a charge memo challenging which Petitioner filed W.P. (C) 6755/2004 on ground of mala fide and bias of Respondent No.3 therein, relying on some past events. Writ petition was disposed of on 12.01.2005 wherein with the consent of the parties, Court appointed Sh. R.S. Arya, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Retired) as the Inquiry Officer (‘IO’) with a direction to complete the inquiry within 08 weeks.
5. Sh. R.S. Arya, IO, rendered his report on 18.06.2005 concluding that Petitioner deserved to be absolved of the Articles of Charges. Petitioner joined Respondent No.1 on 29.07.2005 and started discharging his duties. One Sh. V. Arulmuthan, Deputy Manager, committed suicide during the intervening night of 07/08.12.2006 at his residence and as per the Petitioner, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10023/2016 Page 2 of 18 this gave a ground to the CMD to implicate the Petitioner and he issued a suspension order dated 12.01.2007. A charge sheet was issued on 03.04.2007 under Rule 25 of ED.CIL’s (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 2003 (‘2003 Rules’), with the following Articles of Charges:-
“STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SH. G.L. SAGAR, GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS), ED.CIL (UNDER SUSPENSION):-
Article I Sh. G.L. Sagar, General Manager (Projects),Ed. CIL, while working as incharge of the National Institute of Animal Welfare (NIAW), Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, during August 2005 to 12.01.07 was required to manage the prestigious project of National importance as per terms 85 conditions of Memorandum of understanding. However, Sh. Sagar as Porject Manager failed to perform to the satisfaction of the client due to his rude and abrasive behavior and the client had to request for his rep
