DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY (COOP.) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISCIPLINARY proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 19.8.1995. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted inquiry report dated 21.3.1998 to the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner was supplied with the inquiry report on 1.4.1998. He made representation against the same on 4.5.1998. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 11.5.2000. Petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been rejected on 28.4.2001. Petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report and the petitioner has made representation against the same on 4.5.1998. The same was required to be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority in right perspective before passing the order. The purpose of granting an opportunity to make representation against the inquiry report to the delinquent is to enable him to point out short comings/deficiencies during the course of the inquiry. What has been stated by the Disciplinary Authority in the instant case is that the representation was not satisfactory without dealing with the points raised by the incumbent in the representation. Order dated 11.5.2000 is laconic and cryptic. It is well settled law that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority must be detailed and speaking. Similarly, the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 28.4.2001 is cryptic. He was required to take into consideration all the pleas raised by the petitioner in the appeal preferred against order dated 11.5.2000. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal Court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof.

(2.) IN Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A -14 and A -16 dated 11.5.2000 and 17.4.2001 respectively, are quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, respondents ought to have been granted opportunity to proceed with the matter; however, since the petitioner has retired from service, the proceedings are ordered to be closed. Petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.