RATAN CHANDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This writ appeal arises out of the order dated 17.12.2004 in writ petition No. 346/2003 whereby, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant in limine. As against the impugned order initially the LPA was filed. The matter went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court as to the question of maintainability of the LPA in the case of Jamshed and Guzda v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 1 JT 370), Hon'ble the Supreme Court after coming into force of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 vide order dated 8.9.2005 directed finding of all those appeals, which were pending before this Court as LPA as appeal in the light of section 2(e).

(2.) Before us, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the approach of the learned Single Judge was not correct and was contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Misra, 1998 7 SCC 84. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that if the enquiry officer comes to the finding that the charges were not proved and the Disciplinary Authority wishes to proceed further in the matter by not agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer then the Disciplinary Authority has to issue a show cause notice alongwith reasons as to why they were not agreeing with the report of the Disciplinary Authority and then has to pass an appropriate order after hearing the delinquent. The relevant observation in Kunj Bihari's case are reproduced for the sake of reference here as under:--

(3.) Since in this case, the enquiry officer exonerated the appellant of the alleged charges leveled against him, the Disciplinary Authority having taken a different view but without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, proceeded contrary to the principle of natural justice and the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kunj Bihari's case .