STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. SURENDRADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Steel Authority of India Limited, 'SAIL', for short, the employer, is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside disciplinary proceedings. Heard the learned standing counsel for the SAIL and the learned counsel for the respondent. Enquiry officer found that none of the charges is proved. The disciplinary authority issued Ext. R3(a) memo saying that memo of charges is established. There is not a syllable in Ext. R3(a) dated 24.4.2002 whether the disciplinary authority has disagreed or has stated reasons for such disagreement as regards any of the findings of the enquiry officer. It is trite law that when a disciplinary authority disagrees with enquiry officer, the finding, which is disagreed upon, has to be identified and notified. The reasons for the disagreement have also to be notified to the delinquent. Otherwise, the opportunity extended to the delinquent to show cause upon such undisclosed disagreement and undisclosed reasons, therefore, would be meaningless. Without the proposal for disagreement and the reasons for the proposed disagreement being on record, the delinquent cannot be required to answer any proposal for the disciplinary authority's disagreement to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The delinquent cannot be expected to assume or make an enquiry by himself, roving into the vicissitudes of the spectrum of thoughts of the disciplinary authority; even without being notified of the proposed disagreement or reasons therefore. The delinquent cannot be legally expected to show cause on the basis of the assumed proposal to disagree or the assumed reasons for the disagreement, which are not disclosed by the disciplinary authority. Those could be even fertile zones of imagination, not eligible to legal and constitutional comprehension in terms of the Constitution of India and the laws. The delinquent cannot be expected to anticipate such matters. In Ext. R3(a), as already noted, there is no expression of disagreement even. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge in this intra-court appeal.

(2.) We have also looked into the matter from the angle of financial component. In the ultimate analysis of the scheme of things, SAIL does not stand to lose since what would be due to the respondent in terms of the judgment of the learned single Judge would be around a lakh of rupees or a little more. Well, it is appropriate to recall the words of caution expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Haryana Dairy Development Co-op. Federation Ltd. v. Jagdish Lal, 2014 3 SCC 156 making reference to the 145th Report of the Law Commission of India and noticing that the officers ought to take responsibility and avoid waste of public money by approaching courts.