Dr. Kashi Nath Ram vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 18 May, 2007
Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar and also a decision in Ram Krishan v. Union of India and Ors. and submitted that while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, it is necessary that the provisional conclusion should be specified by the disciplinary authority stating the reason for which he differs from the findings of the enquiry officer and then indicating the nature of the action proposed to be taken against the delinquent employee. Learned Counsel also relied on a decision of Patna High Court reported in 2002 (1) JCR 229 (Jhr) in support of his said contention and submitted that the petitioner's case is without any merit and is fit to be dismissed.