GURMEL SINGH Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 22.1.2010 (Annexure P/35) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'The Tribunal') holding that the Petitioner, who was a Driver, was liable to pay a sum of 25,710/-and the same has been deducted from his DCRG. The basis of the aforesaid order passed by the Respondent-Department was an inquiry conducted in accident, which was allegedly caused by the Petitioner on 11.9.2001. The inquiry Officer in his report did not find the Petitioner guilty of any of the charges, which were levelled against him, as is recorded in the dissent note dated 24.5.2005 (Annexure P-22). However, the disciplinary authority namely the Director Transport, U.T. Chandigarh proceeded to disagree with the inquiry report in pursuance of the powers conferred under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal), Rules 1970, the dissent note reads as under:

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid para of the dissent note would show that the disciplinary authority has proceeded to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the basis of his opinion and there is no evidence discussed for reaching a conclusion that the Petitioner in fact was guilty. There can not be any conclusion on the basis of opinion of the disciplinary authority. It has to be necessarily based on the evidence which might have been left out by the inquiry officer from consideration while recording the findings exonerating the delinquent employee. There is a specific requirement of Rule 9 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Rules'), imposing an obligation on the disciplinary authority disagreeing on any of the articles of charge that it must record its reasons for each disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. The relevant extract of Rule 9 of the Rules is relevant to the controversy in hand and reads as under:

(3.) The question which has been raised before us, has also been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 7 SCC 84. The specific question formulated by their Lordships' is as under: