IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 4^th September, 2025 THE BRITISH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER .…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

PARBODH KUMAR SHARMA ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present Mr. Puneet Sharma, for the appellants.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. Writ Petition filed by the respondent has been allowed by the learned Single Bench on 19.02.2025, whereby, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 19.09.2018, dismissing the respondent from service, has been set aside. It is this order of the learned Single Bench dated

19.02.2025, which is impugned in this Appeal.

2. Learned Single Bench, for the purposes of allowing the Writ Petition, has taken note of the fact that the respondent had retired eight years prior to passing of the order of dismissal.

3. Facts, as would clearly be reflected from the records, reveal that the disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the respondent with service of a charge-sheet upon him on 18.11.2004. The respondent submitted reply to this charge-sheet on 17.12.2004. An enquiry was directed to be conducted pursuant to order dated 07.02.2008. The Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 19.08.2010, clearly holding that the charges against the respondent were not proved. The said inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer has not been accepted by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, who has exercised his authority under Rule 26 of the Employees Conduct (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1986 of the BIC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to the “the Rules of 1986”), and ordered a fresh enquiry. It is this fresh enquiry which has resulted in passing of the dismissal order against the respondent.

4. It is undisputed that the respondent had attained the age of superannuation on 30.10.2010.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be worth noticing that Rule 26 of the Rules of 1986 permits the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action on the report of the Inquiry Officer.

6. Rules 26 (1) and (2) of the Rules of 1986 are relevant for the present purposes and are reproduced as under:-

“26. ACTION ON THE INQUIRY REPORT (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case of the inquiring authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 25 as far as may be.

(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward, if it disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reason for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.”

7. The conjoint reading of Rule 26 (1) and 26 (2) of the Rules of

1986, would make it clear that the disciplinary authority, for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, is required to record his reason for such disagreement and record his own findings on such charge.

8. In the facts of the present case, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director had passed an order holding the inquiry to be bad in law just two days prior to superannuation of the respondent. The reasons for not agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, in the order dated 28.10.2020, are reproduced as under:-

“AND Whereas the said Shri D.S. Mishra, conducted the enquiry, has submitted his findings/ enquiry report on 19.08.2010. I have gone through the enquiry report along with the relevant documents submitted by him and observed that certain aspects which have not been considered during the enquiry. Moreover, I am also not satisfied by the way in with enquiry has been conducted.

Whereas, in the interest of principles of natural justice, it seems, therefore, necessary to get the enquiry conducted afresh.

NOW therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rul