M RAVINDRA Vs. CHAIRMAN COFFEE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an interesting facet with regard to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment in a situation where it disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. That such a power exists is undisputed, but the petitioner's learned Counsel has seriously assailed the manner in which that power has been exercised, insofar as, he relies on the well defined principles of Service Law for the purpose of establishing that the order in question is assailable. The facts in this case hardly require to be recounted. The petitioner who was an employee of the Coffee Board and at the relevant time was the Depot Manager was served with a charge-sheet essentially holding him liable for shortage of approximately 1279 Kgs. of Coffee. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer after a detailed and careful verification of all the material recorded a finding that the charge was not proved. This report was placed before the Disciplinary Authority which disagreed with the findings. He served a Memo on the petitioner asking him to show-cause as to why he should not be held guilty of the charge and a penalty of reduction of his salary should not be imposed on him apart from recovery of the value of the Coffee in question. This Memo is sought to be attacked on the ground that Regulation 12 prescribes a time limit of 15 days whereas the Disciplinary Authority only gave the petitioner ten days' time to file his reply. The petitioner's Counsel therefore submits that this was a serious breach of procedure to the extent that the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity of showing cause. I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that undoubtedly the time frame fell slightly short of the prescribed one but no prejudice was caused to the petitioner insofar as he did submit his reply.

(2.) The real head of attack as far as the petitioner is concerned comes from the quality of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned Counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted the entire enquiry, it was he who recorded the evidence and evaluated it and that he has given unassailable reasons for having held that the charge was not proved. If this report was to be set aside, it could only have been done by pointing out the improprieties involved therein or that it was erroneous or perverse but more importantly by substituting that report with a better or a sounder order. It is submitted that where the Disciplinary Authority is generally in agreement with the report, that it is open to him to accept the report without stating precisely on what grounds he has accepted it, which position is well settled in law. The conflict of views arise in a situation where the Disciplinary Authority does not agree with the enquiry report in which case it is obligatory on his part to substitute his report with an entirely new one setting out fresh, clear and cogent reasons why he does not agree with the earlier report and more importantly the reasons why he has recorded different findings. I may mention here that in a case where the Enquiry Officer records an adverse verdict and the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with it, the duty cast on the Disciplinary Authority is not half so serious as in the reverse situation where the Disciplinary Authority records an adverse finding in the face of a favourable one. In the latter situation, it would be absolutely obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to justify the findings through a detailed speaking order which does not necessarily have to be a long one but it must have the basic ingredients whereby it can be substantiated both on facts and in law from the record. In the light of this position, learned Counsel submits that the order of the Disciplinary Authority in this case which has set out only two grounds is virtually no order at all. He has attacked the first ground as being totally and wholly erroneous and as far as the second ground is concerned, it hardly needs to be referred to because the Disciplinary Authority contends that the officer has added nothing to what he has said earlier. There are no positive findings nor are there reasons set out in support thereof and therefore the order would be legally unsustainable insofar as the recording of findings are virtually unsubstantiated in this background and would therefore have to fall on the ground of arbitrariness.

(3.) The position instead of improving, considerably worsens at the appellate stage. The basic function of an appeal is that the Superior Authority is required to review the order appealed against and the Memo of Appeal in such a case indicates the grounds on which the appeal has been filed and which may be considered. The record requires to be re-evaluated and a fair adjudication done for the purpose of deciding as to whether the order was sustainable and is liable to be upheld or not. The petitioner's learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the quality of the appellate order which can hardly be defined as an order. It merely sets out the history or background of the proceeding and ends with the conclusion that the Appellate Authority agrees with the Disciplinary Authority. It is against this last order that the present petition has been filed. I need to record here that the consequences of these orders are relatively serious insofar as the petitioner was faced with a severe punishment insofar as his four increments were withheld and he was called upon to make good an amount of Rs. 26,500/- The injustice complained of therefore is of some seriousness which is why the petitioner has approached this Court.