Union Of India Thru G. M. North ... vs Mangroo Ram And Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 5630 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 12.10.2017
 
  Delivered on  24.10.2017 
 

 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 72253 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru G. M. North Railway And Another
 
Respondent :- Mangroo Ram And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A. K. Roy,Prashant Mathur
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,K.C.Sinha,Sunil
 

 
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

Heard Sri Prashant Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.

The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 935 of 2007.

The brief facts are that the respondent No.1 was posted as Station Superintendent at Amethi Railway Station and was going to retire from service on 31st January, 2002. On 29th January, 2002, he was suspended from service on the charges of stacking certain prohibited goods in the godown of the railway station without making entries in the register and without realizing any charges for keeping the goods in the railway godown.

The petitioners determined the loss of Rs.1,67,260/- to the railway on account of the aforesaid misconduct of the respondent No.1 and directed him to deposit the same and vide letter dated 22.2.2002, recovery of the aforesaid amount was issued against him.

The post retiral dues of the respondent No.1 were also withheld by the petitioners and therefore, he filed an Original Application No. 386 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.8.2003, with the direction to the petitioners to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.1 within four months from the date of presentation of the copy of the order. It was further provided that the amount of Rs.1,67,260/-, which is sought to be recovered from the respondent No.1, may be withheld and remaining amount towards his post retirement dues may be released to him as per Rules.

The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was not complied and only after filing of contempt petition No. 07 of 2005, the same was complied and the recovery of Rs.1,67,260/- was effected from the gratuity of the respondent No.1.

The respondent No.1 preferred a departmental appeal dated 17.2.2002 before the appellate authority stating that no enquiry report has been given to him and thereafter his appeal was decided by an official note dated 5.7.2007 by the following orders:-

mRrj jsyos

ihih&33

Jh eax: jke Hkw0iwoZ LVs'ku v/kh{[email protected] dks tkjh nh?kZ vkjksii= fnukad 30-1-02 ij tkWp vf/kdkjh dh tkWp fjiksVZ fnukad 30-8-06 }kjk vf/kjksfir lHkh vkjksiksa dks fl) ik;k x;k gSA

Jh eax: jke LVs'ku v/kh{kd vesBh ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq, izfrcfU/kr oLrqvksa dh LVSfdax LVs'ku eky xksnke ij djk;k] dqN oLrqvksa dh LVSfdax fcuk vuqefr djk;k rFkk LVs'ku ij vfHkys[kksa esa fjdkMZ Hkh ugha fd;kA bl [email protected]>dj fd, d`r ls jsy jktLo dh 1]67][email protected]& jkf'k ek= dh {kfr gq;h gSA vius fofHkUu fyf[kr Lohd`fr;ksa }kjk fnukad 19-1-02 rFkk fnukad 3-5-2002 }kjk budh bl jktLo {kfr dk mRrjnkf;Ro Lor% Li"V gSA vfHkys[[email protected] ds vHkko esa ynku ds le; ikfVZ;ksa ls LVSfdax esa cdk;k olwyh dk;Zjr i;Zos{kd }kjk djk ikuk laHko Hkh ugha FkkA jsy jktLo dh {kfr dh Hkjik;h gsrq jkf'k 1]67][email protected]& dh olwyh Jh eax: jke HkwriwoZ LVs'ku v/kh{[email protected] us xzsP;wVh ls djkus dk oeifjiz ds vkns'k dks lgh ekurs gq, muds fu.kZ; dks vihy fuLrkj.k rgr ;Fkkor j[kus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

oea [email protected] viBuh; g0 viBuh;@5-7-07

lhvks,[email protected]

Aggrieved by the punishment order and appellate orders, the respondent No. 1 filed an Original Application No.935 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, which was disposed of vide order dated 9.9.2010. The learned Tribunal set aside the punishment order and the appellate order passed against the respondent No.1 on the ground that the entire enquiry proceedings were vitiated because it held the respondent No.1 and another employee, Shri V. P. Singh, jointly responsible for the loss caused to the railway, but without disagreeing with the same in writing, the recovery orders for the entire amount were passed against the respondent No.1, which is unfair. The learned Tribunal directed the department to consider afresh entire points raised by the respondent No.1 within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The respondent No.1 has filed his counter affidavit bringing on record the record of the enquiry proceedings and has stated that the enquiry was initiated because of the inspection report of the Divisional Operating Manager, Sri Imtiaz Ahmad. This report was the basis of the charge-sheet issued against the respondent No.1, but Sri Ahmad never appeared in the enquiry proceedings to prove his report and the entire disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.1 were vitiated. The respondent No.1 has further stated in his counter affidavit that, in case, the disciplinary authority did not agreed with the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, it should have recorded reasons for the same before passing the punishment order of recovery only against the respondent No.1 and absolving other employee, Sri V.P. Singh, of the charges proved against him in the enquiry.

The petitioners have also filed their rejoinder affidavit rebutting the allegations made in the counter affidavit.

After considering the material on record and the evidence of the parties, it appears that the respondent No. 1 was not supplied the copy of the inquiry report nor second show cause notice. It is further observed that in the departmental inquiry report, Inquiry Officer has recorded the findings that the respondent No.1 is found guilty of charges Nos. A,B,C, and D and the charges No. E, F, G and H are found to be proved against the respondent No.1 and Shri V.P. Singh, jointly, but the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reason for punishing only the respondent No.1, by issuing orders of recovery against him. It is settled law that in case, the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, he is required to record reasons for the same and in the absence of reasons, the order of the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained.

It is well settled that on receiving the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority is required to consider whether to agree with the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer or not. In the Government Employment, this is necessitated by the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If, an authority empowered to act upon the report of the Inquiry Officer acts in a mechanical way, the constitutional guarantee will hardly give any protection to a government servant. It is incumbent on the disciplinary authority to come to a finding of the guilt of the delinquent and in case, the records do not shows any such express finding then the order is liable to be quashed. When the attention of the disciplinary authority is found to be focused only on the question of punishment and not on the question of guilt or innocence of the accused, the order is liable to be quashed.

If, the disciplinary authority does not accepts any finding of the Inquiry Officer, then it should record its provisional conclusion and give a show cause notice of the proposed punishment to the employee concerned. Any order which is likely to visit the citizens with adverse consequences can only be passed after an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, we find that the disciplinary authority, although differed with the findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer, he did not record any reason for the same nor gave any show cause notice of the proposed punishment to the respondent No.1. He never informed the respondent No.1 that only he is being punished in pursuance of the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer and the other employee found guilty by the Inquiry Officer, Sri V.P. Singh, is being exonerated from the charges for the reasons being given.

Further, a perusal of the appellate order also goes to show that the appellate authority has not applied his mind to the fact that the disciplinary authority has not recorded reasons for differing with the conclusions of the disciplinary authority. He has only upheld the part of the order of the disciplinary authority and has ordered deduction of the amount Rs.1,67,260/- from the respondent No.1 holding that the findings arrived by him are legally justified, without stating a word about the conclusion of guilt of another employee, Sri V.P. Singh arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. The Apex court has held that even where there is an order of concurrence recorded by appellate authority he should give reasons for the same.

In Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others Vs. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 469, the Apex Court has held as under( paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said SCC):

"19. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also having regard to the detailed manner in which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had dealt with the matter, including the explanation given regarding the disbursement of the money received by the respondent, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal and endorsed by the High Court. No doubt, the Divisional Forest Officer dealt with the matter in detail, but it was also the duty of the appellate authority to give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondent. A similar duty was cast on the revisional authority being the highest authority in the Department of Forests in the State. Unfortunately, even the revisional authority has merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer had been examined by the Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved. He too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal from service.

20.It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum." (Emphasis supplied).

From the above discussion, it is clear that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have applied their mind to the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. The objection raised by the respondent No.1, that Sri Imtiaz Ahmad, whose report was the basis of the charge-sheet against him, was neither examined in the enquiry nor the reasons for differing with the inquiry report have been recorded by the disciplinary authority.

Therefore, the order dated 09.9.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application NO. 935 of 2007 is affirmed, but with the clarification that the respondent No.1 shall be supplied with the inquiry report by the disciplinary authority to which he may file objections. The inquiry report of the inquiry officer shall be considered by the disciplinary authority afresh and reasons shall be clearly recorded for accepting the same or rejecting the same, with or without any modification, within two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order before him.

With the aforesaid observations, the above writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 24.10.2017

Ruchi Agrahari