Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs S.C. Sharma on 7 July, 2011
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ [W.P. (C) 5466 OF 2000]
% JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 07.7.2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. . . . PETITIONERS
Through: Nemo
VERSUS
S.C. SHARMA . . .RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with
Ms. Punam Singh and Ms. Amrita
Prakash, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be
allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral)
1. The respondent herein while working as Senior Accounts
Officer (SAO) was issued a Memorandum of Chargesheet on 28th
August, 1993 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The
allegations made in the said chargesheet was that the respondent
had issued cheque bearing No. AX-305405 dated 19th August,
1991 for ` 1,63,920/- to a non-existent firm M/s Beena Shoppies,
General Suppliers at Dehradun by the office of DCDA (R & D),
Dehradun with reference to local purchase bill, alleged to have
emanated from Defence Electronics Application Laboratory,
Dehradun but was disowned by the said Laboratory and so a
preliminary investigation was carried out which revealed that
respondent had attempted to embezzle public money to the tune
of ` 1,63,920/- by causing issue of a cheque in favour of a non-
existing firm and for handing over the cheque personally to a
person whose whereabouts were not known.
2. A regular departmental enquiry was held after appointing an
Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting and
concluding the enquiry submitted his report giving the following
findings:-
"Charge-I-Not proved.
Charge-II:- Partially proved. Only the part of the
Charge „removed the cheque as well as the
supporting LP Bill‟ is proved.
Charge-III- Partially proved. Only the part of the
Charge "informed the Section that the cheque had
been personally handed over to the representative"
has been proved. It was established during the
inquiry that instead of the cheque being handed
over to the resp. of the „firm, the CO had informed
that the cheque had been handed over to the Rep.
of the „Unit.
Charge-IV- proved".
A copy of the Enquiry Officer Report was sent to the
respondent who furnished his comments thereupon. The
disciplinary authority after going through the enquiry report as
well as the comments furnished by the respondent passed the
orders dated 12th January, 1996 imposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement. In this order, the disciplinary authority
also recorded his own findings holding that charge no.1 stood
proved and likewise, charge-II and III were also proved fully. To
that extent, obviously, the disciplinary authority did not agree
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding that charge-I has
not proved and charge-II and III have partially proved. The
respondent filed appeal before the appellate authority which was
rejected vide orders dated 30th October 1996. Feeling aggrieved
by the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority, the respondent approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing O.A. 390/1997 under
Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. The enquiry
as well as the punishment orders were challenged on various
grounds. One of the grounds taken by the respondent was that
before disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in
respect of charge I, II and III, the respondent was not given any
show cause notice or opportunity of being heard by the
disciplinary authority and no note of dissent/disagreement was
provided to the respondent. This contention of the respondent
found favour with the learned Tribunal holding that when the
disciplinary authority chose to disagree with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority
to give a show cause notice to the respondent. The Tribunal
relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Punjab National
Bank Vs. Kunj Behari (JT 1998 (5) SC 548) holding as under:-
"Principles of natural justice have to be read
into Regulation 7 (2). Whenever the
disciplinary authority on any article of charge
then before it records its own findings on such
charge, it must record its tentative reasons
for such disagreement and give to the
delinquent office ran opportunity to represent
before it records its findings. The report of
the inquiry officer containing its findings will
have to be conveyed and the delinquent
officer will have an opportunity to persuade
the disciplinary authority to accept the
favourable conclusion of the inquiry officer."
3. The Tribunal in these circumstances, did not go into the
other contentions raised by the respondent and allowed O.A. of the
respondent herein and quashed the penalty order. The precise
directions given by the Tribunal in this behalf read as under:-
"In the result, for the reason given above,
O.A. succeeds and is allowed with the
following directions:-
(i) The impugned penalty orders dated 12th
January, 1996 and 30th October, 1996 are
quashed and set aside.
(ii) If the applicant has not reached the age of
superannuation from service the
respondents shall reinstate him, and liberty
is granted to them to proceed with the
disciplinary proceedings against him in
accordance with law and regulations within
2 months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
(iii)Therefore, the competent authorities shall
pass necessary orders regarding the
intervening period from the date of
compulsory retirement to the date of
retirement in accordance with the rules. No
order as to costs."
4. Challenging this order of the Tribunal, the present writ
petition is preferred under Rule 226 of the Constitution of India
invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Rule DB was issued in this case and the matter was directed
to be listed. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner/UOI at the
time of hearing. The matter was argued by the learned counsel for
the respondent. We have also perused the writ petition as well as
other pleadings including the impugned judgment of the learned
Tribunal. We are one with the Tribunal insofar as Tribunal holds
that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority
suffered on account of violation of principles of natural justice by
not giving hearing before disagreeing with the findings of the
Enquiry officer on charges-I, II and III.
6. On the facts of this case, the judgment of Supreme Court in
Kunj Behari (supra) is squarely applicable. The petition is decided
on merits and is dismissed with costs quantified @ ` 10,000/-.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(M.L. MEHTA)
JUDGE
JULY 7,2011
skb
