1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10289/2009 Satish Nagpal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 11.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. C.S. Kotwani, for the petitioner/s. Mr. I.S. Pareek, Addl. Government Counsel. ... The petitioner, a Trainer (Land Records Inspector) at Patwar Training Center, Gajsinghpur was served with a memorandum as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 28.3.2007. On being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner the disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer that submitted its report on 19.4.2008. The disciplinary authority on considering the report of inquiry officer and other record of the inquiry decided to re inquire the matter, as such, on 10.6.2008 the matter was remanded for inquiry afresh. The inquiry officer again submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 29.9.2008 and this time too no charge was found established. The disciplinary authority directed the petitioner to appear before him for personal hearing on 11.12.2008. The petitioner submitted a detailed written representation to substantiate that whatever findings given by the inquiry officer are correct. The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the report of the inquiry officer held the petitioner guilty and imposed a penalty of 2 the stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect under an order dated 4.2.2009. An appeal preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the disciplinary authority also came to be rejected by the order dated 2.9.2009. While challenging the orders dated 2.9.2009 and 4.2.2009, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the instant one is a case of the flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity on the count that the disciplinary authority never disclosed the reasons for disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer. It is submitted that though an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, but no reason for disagreement with the findings given by the inquiry officer was ever conveyed to him. The petitioner, in such circumstances, did not choose to contest the matter as inquiry report was in his favour. Learned counsel for the respondents while admitting the position that no notice was given to the petitioner specifying reasons for disagreement submitted that the same is of no consequence in view of the fact that the petitioner contested the entire matter before the appellate authority and appellate authority has dealt with all the contentions raised by the petitioner, as such, whatever lacuna remained before the disciplinary authority that came to be satisfied by the appellate authority. 3 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd Ramzan Khan { reported in 1991(1) SCC Page 588} held that inquiry report should be supplied to a delinquent employee in view of the fact that such report holding an incumbent guilty for misconduct is an adverse material on which the disciplinary authority determines his decision. The delinquent employee, as such, is having a right to contest the findings given by the inquiry officer. In the case in hand, the findings of the inquiry officer were in favour of the petitioner, therefore, there was no need for contesting the same. The disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and he was of the view that the finding of guilt is required to be recorded, as such, an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to contest the same by supplying the reasons for disagreement with inquiry officer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra while examining the same issue held as under: “As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its 4 tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favorable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” In the instant case it is the position admitted that no report of the inquiry officer was given to the petitioner, as such, the violation of the principles of natural justice is apparent. The only defence extended by the respondents that the appellate authority in detailed considered all objections and contentions of the petitioner and that amounts to satisfactory sealing of whatever lacuna remained up to the imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority. I do not find any merit in the argument aforesaid. The appellate authority examines validity of an order and if the original order itself is fundamentally laconic, the lacuna can not be removed by the appellate authority. 5 For the reasons mentioned above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 2.9.2009 passed by the appellate authority are declared bad, and therefore, are quashed. No order as to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '