A RAJI REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against a judgment dated 3-5-2000 passed by the A.P. State Administrative Tribunal whereby and whereunder the petitioner's original application was dismissed. The question that arose before the learned Tribunal was as to whether the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer was not bound to state reasons which impelled him to differ with the finding of the enquiry officer. The learned Tribunal referred to Rule 21(4) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules and inter alia held:

(2.) Before the learned Tribunal reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena was placed but the same was distinguished on the ground that it related to a matter where a minor punishment was imposed. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to address itself the right question, namely, as to whether the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer was bound to disclose the reasons for such disagreement so as to enable the delinquent officer to meet the same. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by a recent judgment of the Apex Court in S.B.I. and others wherein the Apex Court has relied upon a large number of decisions including Saxena's case wherein it was held:

(3.) Having regard to the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the disciplinary authority was bound to record its tentative reasons for disagreement while disagreeing with the findings of a enquiry officer and give a delinquent officer an opportunity to represent, before it records its ultimate finding.