JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR &ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE 17th June, 1996 and until 9th November, 1996, appellant, a constable of the police force of the State, remained absent without any intimation. This resulted in suspension of the appellant with effect from 11th November, T996 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. The contemplated disciplinary proceeding was actually initiated by issuing a charge -sheet dated 28th December, 1996. No reply thereto having been received, the enquiry proceeding was concluded ex parte as the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Although the charge -sheet depicted that such unauthorized absence of the appellant was the misconduct alleged against him, but the Enquiry Officer found upon looking into certain documents, which had not been identified in the charge -sheet, that the petitioner is a habitual absentee. The comment of the appellant on the enquiry report was to that effect. Disciplinary authority thereupon by the order impuged in the writ petition dismissed the appellant. While doing so, the disciplinary authority also as that of the Enquiry Officer found as a fact that the appellant has been punished on many occasions for similar conduct and, accordingly, punishment of dismissal would be appropriate. After having had failed before the appellate authority, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition which having been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) NATURAL justice requires the person to be disciplined to know not only the grounds upon which he is proposed to be disciplined, but also what factors may be taken note of while concluding the disciplinary proceeding. In the charge -sheet it was not indicated that he having been punished earlier for similar reasons, the charge levelled in the charge -sheet takes a different dimension. From the records relied, it does not appear that at any stage the employer expressed an intention to bring to the notice of the Enquiry Officer the past conduct of the appellant. Even the enquiry report does not give particulars of such past conduct. The disciplinary authority in the second show cause did not indicate that having regard to the past conduct of the appellant, the charge as stood proved before the Enquiry Officer becomes very severe. Accordingly, appellant had no clue as to what he is required to meet in relation to the proposed punishment. That being the situation, we set aside the impugned order of termination as passed by the disciplinary authority but keep the above direction in abeyance having regard to the fact that the said order was passed almost 10 years back until the disciplinary authority decides the matter afresh.

(3.) IT is made clear that while deciding the matter afresh, the disciplinary authority shall be entitled to look into the charge - sheet, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the comments thereon by the petitioner as well as materials brought on record of the disciplinary proceedings in relation to the charges mentioned in the charge -sheet alone and nothing else.