Amarnath Choudhary Vs. the State of Bihar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

service law - suspension--punishment contrary to enquiry report--charge memo served--alleged negligence in duty--enquiry conducted--not objected by petitioner--punishment order issued--aggrieved filed petition--counter by respondent authorities--enquiry report exonerated petitioner of charges, but pleaded justification for punishment against dereliction of duty--disciplinary authority differed with enquiry officer--disciplinary authority required to give tentative reasons for differing with enquiry officer--reasons of disagreement and opportunity to delinquent for hearing necessary--not done so--order impugned quashed--application allowed. - - 4. the law with regard to the manner and procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authority, in the event of an enquiry report exonerating the delinquent is by now well settled......would be required to set out the tentative reasons for disagreement with the report of the enquiry officer along with the proposed punishments in view of the reason of disagreement to provide an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent and then arrive at a finding. this not having been done in the present case, in view of the law laid down in the case of punjab national bank v. kunj behari mishra, reported in : (1998)iillj809sc this court finds it difficult to uphold the impugned order at annexure-4 visiting the petitioner with the punishment as aforesaid. the order at annexure-4 is accordingly quashed. this would however not preclude the respondents from proceeding afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report, should they so desire.5. this application is accordingly stands allowed to the extent indicated above.no order as to costs.

Judgment:

Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The short issue involved in the present writ application is that the petitioner was suspended on 25.2.1998 while he was posted as Warder in the Central Jail at Buxar. The memo of charges were served on him on 17.3.1999. Subject of the disciplinary proceeding was the allegation of negligence in duty resulting in the smuggling of materials to the jail which helped three inmates to escape. The Enquiry Officer having duly conducted the proceedings to which the petitioner makes no grievance arrived at a finding exonerating the petitioner as contained in Annexure-3 to the present writ application, after proper examination of witnesses etc. including the inmates who had allegedly escaped. The petitioner makes a grievance that in pursuance of the report of the Enquiry Officer the impugned order of punishment at Annexure-4 came to be issued straightaway visiting him with the punishment of being relegated to the basic post of Warder and stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and payment of only subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Para 3 of the counter affidavit would admit that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. Para 7 of the counter affidavit would reiterate his exoneration by the Enquiry Officer but would plead the justification for the order of punishment at Annexure-4 as the alleged report of the District Magistrate which indicated connivance and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner as specific justification for the respondents to arrive at the conclusion of guilt against the petitioner and the lack of necessity to issue a second show cause notice to him.

4. The law with regard to the manner and procedure to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority, in the event of an enquiry report exonerating the delinquent is by now well settled. The departmental enquiry would culminate with the final order of Disciplinary Authority. The law would mandate that the Disciplinary Authority before arriving at such finding converse to the recommendation of exoneration by the Enquiry Officer, would be required to set out the tentative reasons for disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the proposed punishments in view of the reason of disagreement to provide an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent and then arrive at a finding. This not having been done in the present case, in view of the law laid down in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra, reported in : (1998)IILLJ809SC this Court finds it difficult to uphold the impugned order at Annexure-4 visiting the petitioner with the punishment as aforesaid. The order at Annexure-4 is accordingly quashed. This would however not preclude the respondents from proceeding afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report, should they so desire.

5. This application is accordingly stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

No order as to costs.