ANEK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to an order, dated 14 February 2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.1012/96. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed petitioner's original application, wherein he had assailed the order of removal from service passed against him. Background facts in brief are as follows:

(2.) The order of the Tribunal is assailed by learned counsel for the petitioner mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to apply the settled principle of law that where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding recorded by an Inquiry Officer, the reasons recorded for his disagreement must be communicated to the delinquent officer. It is urged that in the present case, no reasons for the said disagreement having been communicated to the petitioner, the order passed by the disciplinary authority, without complying with the mandatory requirement, is illegal. It is also pleaded that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner. We are unable to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) There is no quarrel with the proposition that the principle of natural justice demands that whenever the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with a finding recorded by an Inquiry Officer on any article of charge, which is favourable to the delinquent officer, then before recording his own conclusion, he must convey his tentative reasons for such disagreement and the delinquent officer must get an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. [See: Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Sh.Kunj Behari Misra JT 1998 (5) SCC 548].