HRINANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for following reliefs:

(2.) 2003 (3) JCR 55 (Jh) Bachcha Prasad Pathak v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. The aforesaid case law are on the proposition that where the report of the enquiry officer is in favour of the delinquent officer but when the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the conclusion and or report of the enquiry officer, the delinquent officer is entitled to be given an opportunity of being heard and a show cause must be issued. It was also held that difference of opinion and the points of difference must be communicated to the delinquent and it. was in this background that the order of the disciplinary authority was held to be unsustainable.

(3.) I have considered the pleadings and the rival contentions and the law in this regard is well settled. The cardinal principles of natural justice mandates that there should be an application of mind and reasons has to be assigned, more so, when the disciplinary authority differs from the report/finding of the enquiry officer which is in favour of the delinquent officer. It is also well settled that a fresh notice should also be given which is termed as second show cause notice in case of any difference of opinion by the disciplinary authority. In the instant case the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 is strangely based on enquiry report which exonerates the petitioner. It does not even assign any reason for the difference of opinion and the grounds thereto as to why the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and its report. The impugned order is clearly against the well settled principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.