Delhi High Court
Prem Chand vs Indraprastha Generation Co. Ltd ... on 17 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5628/2000
% December 17, 2013
PREM CHAND ......Petitioner
Through: None
VERSUS
INDRAPRASTHA GENERATION
CO. LTD (GENCO) ...... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Yesterday in W.P.(C) No.5725/1999 titled as Mohinder Singh vs.
DVB & Ors., I passed the following order:
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the
present case Inquiry Officer gave his report dated 15.3.1996
exonerating the petitioner. It is argued that no doubt the
disciplinary authority has powers to disagree with the
findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer, however, it
is necessary that a speaking order has to be passed as to
why the disciplinary authority differs with the findings and
conclusions of the Inquiry Officer, and which has not
happened in the present case, inasmuch as, the disciplinary
authority's order dated 03.7.1998 is a non-speaking order
which neither gives reasons for disagreeing with the
findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer, but the
same also does not refer to the contentions as urged on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. It is also argued that the Appellate Authority vide order
dated 01.3.1999 reduced the penalty, but once again the
said order is a non-speaking order which does not give
reasons and does not deal with the arguments urged on
behalf of the petitioner.
3. I find that in the facts of this case there is violation of
principles of natural justice. The Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India, 1990
(4) SCC 594 has held that every quasi-judicial authority
must pass a speaking order, inasmuch as only when reasons
are given, the higher authority or the courts know whether
the reasons given are valid or genuine reasons.
A speaking order is also required because in circumstances
as such the present, a charged official is entitled to know
the reasons why his contentions have been rejected as also
the findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer.
4. In view of the above, impugned order dated 03.7.1998
of the Disciplinary Authority and of the Appellate
Authority dated 1.3.1999 are set aside and the matter is
remanded to the competent authority to pass a speaking
order in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in case of
S.N Mukherjee (supra) within a period of four months of
the receipt of the present order.
5. I may clarify that I have not observed one way or the
other on merits of the matter and this would be decided by
the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
6. The petition stands disposed of. Parties are left to bear
their own costs.
2. The facts of the present case are more or less similar where the
petitioner was charged with remaining absent from duty for about 1/½
years. Petitioner had otherwise served his employer for 17 continuous
years.
3. The effect of dismissal from service would be wiping out
petitioner's service record and the petitioner not getting any gratuity or
provident fund etc etc. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case,
possibly there are sufficient reasons to invoke the doctrine of
proportionality by the disciplinary authority by changing the punishment
to compulsory retirement instead of dismissal from services in view of
the long service record of 17 years of the petitioner and which would be
wiped out on the petitioner being dismissed from services.
4. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with
the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held the petitioner guilty by
passing the following order:
" WHEREAS a show cause notice on the proposed penalty of
dismissal from service, which shall be bar for future
appointment, was issued to Shri Prem Chand, Security Guard,
E.No.24505 vide memo No.F.10/2658/Discip/97-
98/AO(P.II)/471 dated 11.7.97.
AND WHEREAS the said Shri Prem Chand made a prayer
for extension of time by one month to submit his reply vide his
letter dated 31.7.97.
AND WHEREAS the said Shri Prem Chand did not submit
his reply to the memo dated 11.7.97 ibid, even within the
extended time limit.
AND WHEREAS the undersigned as Disciplinary Authority
considers that the charged official has nothing to say on the
proposed penalty as above.
NOW, THEREFORE, after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the penalty of dismissal from
service, which shall be bar for future appointment, is hereby
confirmed upon Shri Prem Chand."
5. Since the impugned order dated 22.10.1997 is a non-speaking order
and it does not give the reasons for disagreeing with the report of the
Inquiry Officer, adopting the reasoning given while deciding W.P.(C)
No.5725/1999, and applying the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of the S.N. Mukherjee (supra) , this
writ petition is allowed by remanding the matter to the Departmental
Authorities including the Disciplinary Authority for passing a fresh
speaking order, in terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee (supra).
6. The Disciplinary Authority will pass a speaking order in
accordance with law within a period of four months of receipt of this
order.
7. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
observations by remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 17, 2013
KA
