Gauhati High Court
A.K.Adhyapok vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 3 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GAU 7
Author: Manash Ranjan Pathak
Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010019642020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 546/2020
1:A.K.ADHYAPOK
PRINCIPAL, GOVT DENTAL COLLEGE, SILCHAR, R/O- SANDHYA
APARTMENT, FLAT A1, BANPHOOL PATH, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006,
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06, ASSAM
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (B) DEPTT
DISPUR
GHY- 06
ASSAM
3:THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 22
ASSAM
4:MUKUL CHANDRA GOGOI
INQUIRY OFFICER
OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT
GOVT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 0
Page No.# 2/13
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
Dates of Hearing : 30.01.2020, 31.01.2020 &
03.02.2020
Date of Judgment and Order : 03.02.2020
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior counsel and Senior Standing counsel for the Health and Family Welfare Department assisted by Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Standing counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department for the State respondent Nos. 1 to
3.
2) Petitioner, namely, Dr. A. K. Adhyapok, Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Regional Dental College, Guwahati was promoted to the post of Principal of the said College vide Notification dated 16.05.2013. While serving in the said capacity, by Notification dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure-II) the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 11.04.2018 the authorities in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State under the provisions of the Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India issued show cause notice to the petitioner along with the statement of charges/allegation, list of documents and witnesses asking him as to why penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of said 1964 Rules should not be inflicted upon him and, directing him to submit his reply within 10 (ten) days from the receipt of the same. The petitioner wanted to inspect certain documents in terms of said show-cause notice dated 11.04.2018 and for that purpose he filed an application on 14.04.2018 before the authority concerned. As petitioner's suspension order dated 05.01.2018 was not reviewed within 90 (ninety) days and show-cause notice was issued to him on 11.04.2018, after 90 (ninety) days Page No.# 3/13 of his suspension, he preferred WP(C) No. 2863/2018 and also filed an application on 02.05.2018 before the authority of the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State for revocation of his suspension order. By Notification dated 08.05.2018 the respondent Health and Family Welfare Department decided to continue with the suspension of the petitioner until further order. Said decision dated 08.05.2018 was challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3038/2018.
3) Both the writ petitions WP(C) No. 2863/2018 and WP(C) No. 3038/2018 were disposed off by a common judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 setting aside the suspension order of the petitioner dated 05.01.2018 as well as the Notification dated 08.05.2018, whereby the authority concerned decided to continue with the suspension of the petitioner, both issued by the respondent Health and Family Welfare Department being not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the said respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with immediate effect.
4) As it was submitted by the petitioner that he is ready and willing to face the departmental proceeding provided he is given a fair opportunity to defend his interest, the Court by the said common judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 did not interfere with the said show cause notice dated 11.04.2018 and directed the respondents therein to permit the petitioner to inspect the relevant documents within a period of 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that order and, the petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defense within 10(ten) days thereafter and further directed the respondents to take appropriate steps so as to conclude the departmental proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the written statement of defense from the petitioner.
5) By Notification dated 09.10.2018, the petitioner was reinstated in service and posted as Principal of Government Dental College, Silchar. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply on 06.05.2019 denying all the charges leveled against him stating that those were without any basis, false fabricated capricious and deliberately done at the behest of some interested persons conspiring against him to serve their own purpose and interest submitting that he is ready to face any level of enquiry to prove his innocence based on material records which was also submitted through E-mail and by speed post.
Page No.# 4/13
6) After conclusion of the enquiry, the respondent authority vide communication dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure-XXI) furnished the enquiry report dated 29.11.2019 to the petitioner pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on 11.04.2018 intimating him that the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the finding of the said enquiry report and decided to impose upon him the penalty of "dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" as per Rule 7 (vii) of the said 1964 Rules and further informed him that he may submit his written representation in that regard before the Department within 15 days, if so desires, from the date of issue of the said communication.
7) On 06.01.2020 petitioner filed his written representation before the Commissioner and Secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State (Annexure-XXII) pertaining to said letter dated 24.12.2019 and the same is yet to be disposed of.
8) Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, more particularly with the findings of the enquiry report dated 29.11.2019 submitted by the concerned Inquiry Officer and the proposed decision of the respondents communicated to him on 24.12.2019 the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying to set aside and quash said enquiry report dated 29.11.2019 as well as proposed decision of the Commissioner and Secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State with an interim prayer to direct the respondents in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State not to pass any dismissal order as proposed by the Government on the basis of the said enquiry report dated 29.11.2019.
9) Regarding the charge No. 1 of committing financial irregularities in the matter of Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) of dental equipments of Regional Dental College, Guwahati, the petitioner submitted that the said AMC was made by the process of open tender and before that the Director of Medical Education, Assam constituted a Technical Committee to scrutinized the rate quoted by the participants. After scrutinizing the tenders by the said Committee, comparative statement was prepared that was forwarded to the DME, Assam for approval along with the minutes of the said Committee and only after obtaining the approval from the DME, Assam, the concerned lowest bidder was entrusted with the AMC. For AMC of the subsequent relevant years, the DME was informed stating that regular maintenance of equipments was essential as warranty period of all those equipments had expired, where most of the equipments were manufactured by the foreign companies. As Page No.# 5/13 informed the petitioner submitted the original terms and conditions of comprehensive maintenance contract along with the necessary documents and extended such AMC with the concerned establishment increasing the rate @ 10% for subsequent extension with due knowledge and approval of the authority.
10) Regarding the second charge, petitioner submitted that in the meeting of the 23 rd Advisory Committee of Regional Dental College, Guwahati consisting of the then Additional Chief Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department Assam as Chairman, the then Secretary of Health & Family Welfare Department, the then DME, Assam, the then Principal of Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, the then Addl. Director, Design, PWD (B), Assam, the then Vice- Principal of RDC, Guwahati as Members, the then Professor and Head of Periodontic, RDC, Guwahati as special invitee and the petitioner as Member Secretary held on 11.01.2013 suggested the RDC Authority to collect money from the intended candidates for the expenditure of their training including stipend resolving that the amount to be collected be fixed by the new Governing Body to be constituted and the concerned Governing Body of RDC, Guwahati in its meeting held on 16.02.2013 decided that an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs be charged from the students who are interested to do internship training at RDC, Guwahati and that said amount be deposited in the account of Hospital Management Society, where stipend amount of Rs. 10,000/- be paid monthly, the amount of Rs.80,000/- would be utilized during the process of internship training. Said decision was taken by the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 11.01.2013 and accordingly the Governing Body of the College on 16.02.2013 decided accordingly. Petitioner submitted that the decision of collecting of Rs. 2 Lakhs from the intending interns for their training at RDC, Guwahati was a collective decision of the said Advisory Committee and the Governing Body of the College had at no point of time could mislead the respondents for the same.
11) Regarding the 3rd charge, petitioner submitted that after his suspension, he was told that question of handing over charge did not arise and the concerned personnel who was entrusted with the charge of Principal of RMC, Guwahati after his suspension made the remark that he will take unilateral charge, which was not opposed and/or objected by the DME and Additional DME and therefore, the issue of handing over charge by the petitioner after his suspension did not arise.
Page No.# 6/13
12) Regarding handing over the key after his suspension, the petitioner submitted that he had already explain before the Authority that he being the examiner of Sankardeva University, he kept certain documents of the said University under his safe custody and after his suspension without any specific direction from the said Authority he could not hand over the key and that the second key of the concerned almirah was available in the Office of the Principal, with which the Authority could have operated the said almirah, he also submitted that he did not use the Official mobile sim card from the date of his suspension which the Authority easily verified from the call records of the registered mobile no. from the concerned service provider.
13) The petitioner submitted that the whole disciplinary enquiry with regard to his alleged charges is a vitiated one as it was done behind him without allowing him to inspect the documents as sought for, without giving him any opportunity to adduce any evidence in his favour. It is also submitted that the petitioner was only asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer during the enquiry, pursuant to which he appeared and the inquiry officer asked him some questions to which he answered to his best capacity and other than he was not called for any single instance and that all the statements of the witnesses recorded in his absence behind his back and that no opportunity was given to him to cross examine those witnesses. It is further submitted that statements of the witnesses were not provided to him and for all these reasons, the petitioner submitted that the whole enquiry proceeding initiated against him is a bias and illegal one, on the basis of which the respondent authority are contemplating to dismiss him from service. The petitioner submitted that the proposed action of the respondents in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service which shall be ordinary be a disqualification for future employment upon him on the basis of said enquiry report dated 29.11.2019 being disproportionate and legally not sustainable, should be set aside and quashed.
14) Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that on the basis of aforesaid facts and pursuant to such a vitiated enquiry, the proposed punishment of dismissal form service which shall be ordinary be disqualification for future employment as per Rule 7(vii) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 to be imposed upon the petitioner, is disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. In this regard, Mr. Choudhury, placed Page No.# 7/13 reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Bhushan Goyal Vs. BHEL, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 82.
15) Mr. Choudhury, submitted that in both the cases of granting AMC to the concerned establishment and the extension of the AMC with the said establishment for subsequent years as well as taking fees of Rs. 02 lakhs from the concerned interns who have passed dentistry from other Colleges than the RMC, Guwahati were collective decisions of the concerned Boards and Committees and it was not his lone decision as already placed. But the respondents are contemplating to impose the said major penalty upon the petitioner, leaving out all the other Officials of said Boards/Committee. Such decisions of the Boards/Committees were unanimous one, that were taken by all the Members of the Board and Committee and that the petitioner has been made scapegoat without taking any action against the other participating Members of the Board/Committee. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Girish Chandra Sarma, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 206, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that if the decision of the Committee stinks, it cannot be said that the respondents alone stinks. It will be arbitrary, if all fish stink, to pick one and say only it stinks is unfair in the matter of unanimous decision of the Committee.
16) Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of such collective decisions of the Board/Committee, the respondents have charged only the petitioner and not the other Members of the Board/Committee, who jointly took the decisions regarding granting of AMC to the concerned establishments and subsequent extension of AMC with it and for collection of Rs. 2 Lakhs from the intending interns, who were not from the RMC, Guwahati. The money that was collected from such students was deposited in the Hospital Management Trust from where those interns were paid Rs. 10,000/- per month during their internship and the remaining of Rs. 80,000/- was utilized for the expenses incurred during the process of internship training. It is submitted that the petitioner was not directly in charge of granting of AMC and/or extension of AMC or collection of said fund of Rs. 2 Lakhs and that it is not the case of respondents' that the petitioner gained personally from such amount deposited by those interns with the Hospital Management Trust and inspite of that the respondents have singled out the petitioner and now contemplating to impose major Page No.# 8/13 penalty upon him, which is in clear violation of law. In this regard, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Raghavelu Vs. Government of A.P. & Another, reported in (1977) 10 SSC 779.
17) Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the respondents in the Health & Family Welfare Department have not yet disposed of the reply of the petitioner to the second show cause and the concerned Disciplinary Authority has not yet issued any order of penalty but from the impugned communication dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure-XXI) it is evident that by accepting the enquiry report dated 29.11.2019 the concerned Disciplinary Authority has already decided to impose the major penalty of "Dismissal from service which shall be ordinary be a disqualification for future employment"
upon him. It is also submitted that the petitioner has come to know that the respondents have already moved the Assam Public Service Commission for removal of the petitioner. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.M.D. Kiran Pasha Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (1990) 1 SCC 328, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submitted that when right to live and personal liberty granting under the Constitution of a person is threatened to be violated or its violation is imminent and the affected person resorts to Article 226 of the Constitution, as in the present case, there being an imminent dismissal of the petitioner from service on the basis of a vitiated enquiry noted above, the Court can protect the observance of the right of the petitioner by restraining the respondents who had threatened the violative by dismissing him from service on the basis of said vitiated enquiry. For the said reason, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the impugned enquiry report dated 29.11.2019 and the proposed decision of the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare Department should be set aside and quashed.
18) Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Health & Family Welfare Department submits that this writ petition being premature should be set aside and quashed in limine as the respondents in the Health & Family Welfare Department more particularly the concerned Disciplinary Authority has not yet passed any order imposing any penalty upon the petitioner on the basis of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on 11.04.2018 and that the reply filed by the petitioner on 06.01.2020 has not yet been disposed of by the said Page No.# 9/13 Disciplinary Authority.
19) Submissions of both the parties and as well as the judgments placed before the Court by Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel in support of the petitioner have been considered.
20) The Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 as amended is a Statutory Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Part-IV of said 1964 Rules, consisting of Rule 7 to Rule 12 relates to Discipline and Part-V of it consisting of Rule 13 to Rule 25 relates to Appeals, whereas Part-VI of said 1964 Rules, consisting of Rules 26 & 27 relates to Review.
Rule 7 of said 1964 relates to Nature of Penalties consisting of 7 (seven) different penalties Clause (i) to Clause (vii), where Clauses (i) to (iii) are minor penalties and Clauses (iv) to (vii) are major penalties. "Dismissal from service which shall be ordinary be a disqualification for future employment" is a major penalty under Clause (vii) of Rule 7 of said 1964 Rules.
21) Rule 9 of 1964 Rules relates to Procedure of Imposing Penalties. Rule 9(9) of said 1964 Rules provides that - The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority; consider the inquiry and record its finding on each charge.
22) Rule 9 (10) of said 1964 Rules relates to Major Penalties, which reads as follows:
If the disciplinary authority having regard to its finding on the charges and on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 7 Should be imposed on the Government servant it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed:
Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty and the Government servant.
23) In the case of Kiran Pasha (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the enforcement of one's right under Article 226(1) of the Constitution means to impose or compel obedience to law or to compel observance of law. When right to personal liberty is guaranteed and the rest of the society, including the State, is compelled or obligated not to violate that right, and if someone has threatened to violate the right guaranteed under Part-
III of the Constitution or its violation is imminent, the person whose right is so threatened or its violation so imminent, he/she may approach the Court under Article 226 of the Page No.# 10/13 Constitution to protect observance of his/her right by restraining those who threatened to violate it. If a threatened invasion of a right is removed by restraining the potential violator from taking any steps towards violation, the rights remain protected and the compulsion against its violation is enforced. If the right has already been violated, what is left is the remedy against such violation and for restoration of the right.
24) In that decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that law surely cannot take action for internal thoughts pertaining to amount to threat or imminence of violation, but can act only after overt acts and if overt acts towards violation have already been done and the same has come to the knowledge of the person threatened with that violation and he/she approaches the Court under Article 226 giving sufficient particulars of proximate actions as would imminently lead to violation of right, the Court can call upon those alleged to have taken those steps to appear and show cause why they should not be restrained from violating that right.
25) The issue involved in said Kiran Pasha (supra) relates to a move of the Andhra Pradesh Government to detain said Pasha under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, against which he filed Writ Petition averring, inter alia, that the successive actions initiated against him were a part of political vendetta, wherein an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents not to take said Pasha into preventive custody for a period of 15 days on the basis of the cases already registered. But after said interim order he was served with the detention order stating the grounds of his detention, which was issued prior to the interim order of the Court and he was taken into custody and detained in jail, however he was released after four days.
26) In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Devi, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269, the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that -
An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fairplay. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon. He is however under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version or defence and an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom in enquiry is held must be Page No.# 11/13 informed of the case he is called upon to meet, and the evidence in support thereof. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed: it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.
27) A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Five Judges Bench) in the case of A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262 have held that -
The dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. For determining whether a power is an administrative power or a quasi-judicial power one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the framework of the law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing from the exercise of that power and the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised. Under our Constitution the rule of law pervades over the entire field of administration. Every organ of the State under our Constitution is regulated and controlled by the rule of law. In a welfare State like ours it is inevitable that the jurisdiction of the administrative bodies is increasing at a rapid rate. The concept of rule of law would lose its vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The procedures which are considered inherent in the exercise of a judicial power are merely those which facilitate if not ensure a just and fair decision.
28) In the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that - As the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should be assigned.
29) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bakhtawar Singh, reported in (1972) 4 SCC 730, pertaining to a disciplinary proceeding matter, have held that - the removing authority by a speaking order should disclose that he had applied his mind to the material on record.
30) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 have held that -
The Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in Page No.# 12/13 defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. Vs. Wednesbury Corpn., (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.
31) A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 249 have held that -
In a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not reappreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. This position of law has been reiterated in several decisions by this Court which we need not refer to, and yet by the impugned judgment the High Court has reappreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any material on record and the allegations levelled against Respondent 1 do not constitute any misconduct and that Respondent 1 was not guilty of any misconduct and accordingly set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allowed the appeal.
32) It is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority has to act justly and fairly even in administrative matters like dismissal or removal of a Government employee from service which necessarily involves civil consequences. Further, such removing authority is required to issue a speaking order, assigning appropriate reasons and disclosing that it had applied its mind to the materials on record.
33) Thus, if a Disciplinary Authority, while issuing order imposing punishment on the delinquent, without applying its mind to the report and record of the inquiry authority and thereby failing to follow the relevant Rules before inflicting punishment to the prejudice of said delinquent, it would amount that the concerned Disciplinary Authority failed to act justly and fairly and rather acted capriciously.
34) In the present case, the concerned Disciplinary Authority is yet to pass order imposing penalty upon the petitioner on the basis of Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him on 11.04.2018 and that pursuant to the communication of said Disciplinary Authority dated 24.12.2019, the reply/representation filed by the petitioner on 06.01.2020, is also pending before said authority.
Page No.# 13/13
35) It is expected that only after proper verification and consideration of the report and record of the inquiry officer, applying its mind, following the relevant Rules, acting in just and fair manner, the concerned Disciplinary Authority shall pass the order on the said Disciplinary Proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner on 11.04.2018.
36) Considering the entire aspect of the matter, this Court is of the view that since the concerned Disciplinary Authority has not yet passed the order on the Disciplinary Proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner on 11.04.2018, this writ petition being a premature one does not call for any interference with the impugned Enquiry Report dated 29.11.2019 as well as said Disciplinary Proceeding initiated on 11.04.2018 in a Writ jurisdiction in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
37) For the reasons above, this writ petition, being a premature one, is dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant