Vijender Singh, Wireman vs Vice-Chairman, Agricultural ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1456 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner by this writ petition assails the inquiry report dated 18.11.1998 (Annexure P/12) and the order of the disciplinary authority dated 22.4.1999/ 29.4.1999 (Annexure P/14) and order the Appellate Authority dated 5th May, 2003 (Annexure P/16).

3. Petitioner is a Wireman working with respondent-Agricultural Produce Market Committee. An inquiry was held against the petitioner and a charge-sheet containing four articles of charges was served. These inter alia related to dereliction of duty. Petitioner was charged with lazing around without caring to make the D.G. set functional and allegedly leaving the place of duty contrary to the instructions of his superiors. As per charge No. II, petitioner was found to be habitual late comer and habitual in deserting his place of duty before the fixed hours. There was no improvement despite the authorities pointing this out to him. The third and fourth charges relate to performance of his duties inasmuch he failed to start the D.G. set so as to avoid burning of the alternator. Petitioner continuing to acts contrary to instructions. The petitioner was also accused of negligence resulting in loss of Rs. 12,000/- on account of burning of D.G. set.

4. Regular inquiry was conducted where the petitioner and the respondents both led evidence. The Inquiry Officer after recording of evidence and perusal of record returned findings of all the charges being proved except charge No. II relating to petitioner being a habitual late comer and deserting his place of duty before the duty hours. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer that Article II of charges was not established and held the same to be fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage for a period of two years in the time scale of pay with further directions that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a short submission while assailing the order of the Disciplinary Authority. He submits that provisions of Rule 15 read with note 10 there under of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have been breached. The Inquiry Officer had held charge No. II i.e. regarding late coming and leaving before the duty hours as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority in its findings in respect of charge No. II recorded its conclusion of disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held charge to be fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority while doing so has only indicated its conclusion without any reason or any reference to any document or record. This apart in case Disciplinary Authority was to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer, it could do so by recording note of disagreement and while doing so, it was required to give an opportunity to the petitioner for showing cause against the proposed disagreement. Petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity for making a representation against the same and penalty and punishment could have been imposed only after consideration of such representation made by the petitioner. Reference may also be invited to Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra, VII and Yoginath D Bagade v. State of Maharashtra, X (1999) SLT 276=JT(1999) (7) 62.

6. Learned Counsel for respondent attempted to urge that the disagreement was in respect of only one charge and there was no controversy with regard to other articles of charges. Once even in respect of one of the articles of charge, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is liable to be set aside, it would not be in the realm of this Court to speculate as to whether the Disciplinary Authority could have still retained the punishment as imposed on account of other charges. This is a matter which would fall within the domain and discretion of Disciplinary Authority. Doctrine of being an exercise in futility, cannot be extended to cover such cases.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.4.1999/29.4.1999 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 5th May, 2003 are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for giving the requisite opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against disagreement in respect of Article 2 and pass fresh order thereafter in accordance with law.