Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) (1986) 2 SCC 651 R.P. Bhat v. Union of India and ors. 
(iv)    AIR 1961 SC 1623 State of MP v. Chintaman
(v)     AIR 1974 SC 2325 State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram
(vi)    1982 (2) SCC 376 State of UP v. Mohd. Sharif
(vii) AIR 1970 SC 1302, Mahavir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of UP and Ors.

9. On the other hand, Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 would submit that the inquiry has been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. He states that all the listed documents were given to the petitioner, which is in compliance of the principles of natural justice. He has drawn my attention to the deposition of the four PWs to contend that as there was no clarity, whether the charges have been proved or not, and also the fact that the purpose of Enquiry Officer is to go to the root of the charges, he was within his right under Rule 14(15) of the CCS (CCA) Rules to call for additional witnesses as Court/expert witnesses. He would state that on the strength of the deposition of the additional witnesses, the charges have been proved against the petitioner, which resulted in the issuance of the penalty order. In other words, he states that the additional witnesses appeared in the Inquiry, were at the behest of the Enquiry Officer and not of the respondents. He would contest the plea of Mr. Kaul that the charge sheet has not been approved by the Competent Authority by stating that no such plea has been taken in the writ petition. That apart, he would justify the disciplinary and appellate orders by stating that no reasons are required to be given when Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are passing their respective orders. He would rely upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:-

20. The reliance placed by Mr. Singhdev on the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of K.P. Singh (Supra) shall not be applicable in view of my finding on facts, above. The question would be, whether in view of my finding above the enquiry has been vitiated. The answer is "No" as I find on a consideration of the depositions already on record excluding that of court / expert witnesses the findings/ conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is justified. In this regard, I refer to the following findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report at Pages 214-217:

25. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated June 23, 1997 and the same was of 17 pages. He had raised various grounds in his appeal. Even though Mr. Singhdev had relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee (supra) to contend that there is no requirement for the Appellate Authority to give separate reasons if he agrees with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, impugned in the appeal, I am unable to agree with the said submission of Mr. Singhdev in view of the recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court in as much as Supreme Court in the case of LIC vs. A. Masilamani 2013 (6) SCC 530 has held that the order of Appellate Authority itself should reveal application of mind and he cannot simply adopt language employed by the Disciplinary Authority and proceed to affirm its order. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the plea of Mr. Kaul is appealing but whether this Court is required in the facts of this case to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for passing a speaking and reasoned order. I am of the view, in view of my finding above wherein I have held the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse, in other words the charge stands proved against the petitioner, no purpose would be achieved in remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority that too after 16 years have elapsed. That apart, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years, which is not a harsh penalty. The present petition is without merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No costs.