The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that if the disciplinary authority thinks it proper to disagree with the findings arrived by the enquiring officer and act upon his own conclusion, the only requirement as per law is that the disciplinary authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer. It was furthermore held that Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited scope of interference in a regular domestic enquiry and can interfere only if there are some procedural lapses or violation of principle of natural justice.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was posted at the CISF unit and was put under suspension with the allegation of involvement of theft along with outsiders in SAP crossing area. Altogether, three charges were leveled against petitioner Raj Pal and four charges were levelled against petitioner Tarlok Singh. Thereafter, the departmental proceedings were initiated and the written statement was filed by the Petitioners and they denied all the charges against them and claimed to be innocent. However, the same was not found satisfactory and enquiry proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, after taking into consideration, the entire oral and documentary evidences the inquiry officer proved the charge no.II with respect to disobeying the order to put their attendance during suspension period. However, charge nos. I and III, as also charge no. IV (only petitioner Tarlok Singh) were found to be not proved and they were exonerated from the charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the same and issued show cause notices to the Petitioners and also explained the reasons for disagreement. After that, disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from service against the petitioners, upon receipts of the replies. Aggrieved by this, the appeal was filed and the same was rejected. Thereafter, the writ petition was also filed and the same was also dismissed after giving the Petitioner liberty to challenge the dismissal order as well as appellate order before the revisional authority. The petitioner filed the revision, but the same was also rejected then, Challenging the said orders, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petitions.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the even though the disciplinary authority has the liberty to disagree with the decision of the inquiry officer on any article of charge still the disciplinary authority before it records its own finding on such charge, records its own findings for such disagreement, on which a reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the delinquent is guilty of the charges. It was furthermore submitted that the evidence of the witnesses are not collaborative in nature. Also, mere suspicion whatsoever may be high cannot take place of proof and from the evidence of witnesses, it is evident that save and except suspicion; nothing is shown to implicate the petitioners. The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Mishra.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondents submitted that from the issuance of the second show cause notice, it is crystal clear that the disciplinary authority while differing with the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer gave its tentative reasons for such disagreement and provided adequate opportunity to the petitioners to represent their cases against the findings of such disagreement. It was furthermore submitted that the disciplinary authority upon perusal of the enquiry report as well as evidence of the witnesses came to the conclusion that the charges are proved against the petitioners and recorded his findings, to which a reasonable / prudent person could come to the conclusion of involvement of the petitioners in the present crime and the order was passed by the disciplinary authority is in the consonance with the principles of natural justice .
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the only legal prerequisite is that the disciplinary authority must record the grounds for any disagreement with the inquiry officer's findings if they believe it is appropriate to act on their own judgment rather than concurring with the officer's conclusions. In the instant case, the requirement of recording reasons has been duly complied with.
It was furthermore observed that the Article 226 of the constitution of India gives a court limited authority to intervene in a routine domestic inquiry; it can only do so in cases where there have been procedural errors or a breach of the natural justice principle. However, in the instant case, no procedural errors were pointed out by the Petitioners.
The court relied upon the judgment titled State of Rajasthan Vs. M.C. Saxena.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that no interference is required with the impugned orders.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the writ petition.
Case Title: Raj Pal V. Tarlok Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak,
Case No.: W.P.(S) No. 1298 of 2013
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, CGC
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
