Quasi-judicial and administrative orders affecting employee rights must be reasoned 'speaking orders'. Failure to supply an inquiry report and provide an opportunity to respond to findings violates the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the punishment order.

ORDER :

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“i) That, impugned orders dated 19.10.2015 Annexure P/1 and 5.7.2014 Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant increments for the years of 2013 & 2014 to the petitioner and consequently pay arrears of the same within a stipulated period along with interest.

iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the period of suspension from 29.8.2012 to 6.12.2012 and pay the difference of salary for the entire period of suspension along with other emoluments for which the petitioner ordinarily entitled along with interest thereon.

iv) That, the stoppage of 3rd increment for the year of 2015 has no connection with the departmental enquiry as such the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the said increment immediately and pay arrears of the same with due interest.

v) Any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Sociology) on an ad hoc basis vide order dated 6.11.1984. At the relevant point of time, i.e. in the year 2012, when petitioner was working as In-charge Principal of Government College, Mehgaon, District Bhind, she was suspended vide order dated 29.8.2012 and her headquarters was fixed at Government College, Balaji Mehona, District Bhind. Thereafter, petitioner duly reported at the said headquarters during the period of suspension and continued to remain there until the revocation of her suspension vide order dated 6.12.2012. It is further submitted that a letter signifying the presence of petitioner was written by the Principal of Government Gandhi Mahavidyalaya, Balaji Mehona, to respondent No. 2 on 29.11.2012 along with a certificate of her presence (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 27.9.2012 was issued levelling two charges against petitioner stating that at the time of a sudden inspection of the college on 27.8.2012 at around 2:20 P.M., petitioner was found absent and as per the attendance register, she had been absent since 1.8.2012. The charge further stated that petitioner remained absent while she was In-charge Principal, which encouraged arbitrariness among the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 19.10.2012, thereby denying both the charges and explaining in detail the correct factual position. Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry; however, the statements of the witnesses were not recorded in the presence of petitioner. She was not given an opportunity to cross-examine any witness nor was she supplied with the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.2.2014. It is further submitted that a copy of the inquiry report was not provided to petitioner. No show-cause notice against the findings of the inquiry report was issued to petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, relying on the inquiry report dated 17.2.2014, passed the order of punishment imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 5.7.2014. The disciplinary authority neither recorded any reason in the order of punishment nor was any finding on the charges recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is further submitted that while imposing the minor punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect, the disciplinary authority did not decide the period of suspension of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected by passing a completely non-speaking and cryptic order dated 19.10.2015 (An