S DAYANANDAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while serving as Assistant Accounts Officer was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding for three charges. THE first charge shows that he failed to hand over the charge to his successor before relieved on transfer to other place. THE second charge shows that he had not produced statement of expenditure incurred for three PD cheques. THE third charge alleges that failure to maintain absolute integrity on devotion to duty.

(2.) IN view of the charge memo one and two, immediately after receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanations. Having not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after giving an opportunity to both the sides came to a conclusion that none of the charges leveled against the petitioner was proved. The Disciplinary Authority while differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the imposition of punishment without issuing proper notice by the Disciplinary Authority clearly mentioning the reasons, for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and without giving sufficient time to submit explanation not to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer is violation of the principles of natural justice and on that basis prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) PRIMA facie, three charges were levelled against the petitioner, namely, the petitioner failed to handover the charge to his successor on time before he was transferred to another station, that the petitioner failed to render appropriate accounts for the cheques drawn by him to the number of the training center as a drawing officer and his failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty being violative of Rule 20(1) of the Government service conduct rule which are all dismissed by the officer as not established against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, after receipt of the Enquiry Officer's finding, though legally entitled to deviate from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, in law is bound to give sufficient reasons with sufficient time as to why the Disciplinary Authority was unable to accept the findings of the Equiry Officer which was in favour of the delinquent officer by differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer must give its tentative reasons for such disagreement by giving to the delinquent officer a sufficient opportunity to represent his further case before the Disciplinary Authority regards its finding.