D SWAMINATHAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, Manalmedu, Nagapattinam District. THE petitioner filed O.A. No. 2795 of 1998 seeking to challenge the orders of the respondent by which he was issued with the punishment of 'reprimand'. THE Tribunal granted interim stay on the ground that the disciplinary authority had passed final orders imposing the punishment of 'reprimand' without furnishing the copy of the enquiry report and calling for explanation from the petitioner. THE Tribunal granted interim stay on the ground raised by the petitioner in the Original Application that non-furnishing of enquiry report is against the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, but the petitioner never stated what is the Supreme Court decision he was referring to. THErefore, the Tribunal was persuaded to grant an interim order, which it was doing for all these years. Though an application was filed by the respondents to vacate the interim order in M.A. No. 624 of 1998, for the reasons best known to the Tribunal, the application was never taken up for disposal. On notice from the Tribunal, the second respondent has filed reply affidavit on 14.05.1998. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 37583 of 2006.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds in attacking the impugned orders namely (i) the disciplinary authority, while accepting the report of the enquiry officer, did not give any reason, which was also erroneously not considered by the appellate authority before imposing the punishment and (ii) the petitioner was not given the copy of the enquiry report. Both the grounds do not stand scrutiny of law. THE Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision reported in (National Fertilizers Ltd., and another vs. P.K. Khanna) (2005) 7 SCC 597 had stated that the disciplinary authorities are required to give reasons only when they disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and not when they agree with the findings.