CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21379 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 21379 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 15, 2010 Ramesh Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was recruited as Constable on 20.8.1982. While posted as Investigating Officer in Police Station Sadar Rohtak, he had investigated F.I.R. No.225 dated 7.7.2006. He claims to have done his best to record the statement of patient Manjit Singh and also submitted an application before the Medical Officer P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak as to whether the patient is fit for recording the statement. As per the petitioner, A.S.I. Ram Kishan submitted a wrong report to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, alleging that the petitioner had not submitted a report for three months in the case investigated by him. For this allegation, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21379 of 2008 -2- departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, on 21.11.2006. Enquiry Officer, however, submitted his report on 25.1.2007 exonerating the petitioner from the allegation made against him. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner while disagreeing with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. Thereafter, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect on 28.2.2007. The petitioner had filed a representation against the same, which was rejected on 5.6.2007. He, thereafter, had filed a revision and the punishment was reduced to stoppage of one increment with permanent effect vide order dated 1.2.2008. The petitioner, accordingly, has challenged this order through the present writ petition. In the reply filed, the respondents would state that the Superintendent of Police concerned was justified in disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. There were sufficient reasons for doing so and accordingly, had rightly proposed the provisional penalty which he intended to award. The submission is that the procedure as adopted was fully in accordance with law and will not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Punjab National Bank and other Versus Sh. Kunj Behari Mishra, 1998(3) RSA 640, to urge that the procedure as adopted by the Superintendent of Police was in violation of principle of natural CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21379 of 2008 -3- justice. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of such charge, then it must record its tentative decision for this disagreement and give an opportunity to the delinquent officer to represent before it records its own finding. Though these observations have been made in the context of Regulation 7(2) as applicable to Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977, but this appears to be requirement to ensure fairness and also to follow the principle of natural justice. Even otherwise, this requirement may also emerge from the provisions of Civil Services Rules as applicable to the employees like the petitioner. The punishing authority has every right to differ with the finding given by the enquiry officer. However, where he does so, he is required to record a note of dissent first, giving reason in support the dissent which is then to be brought to the notice of the delinquent employee for him to respond. It is only thereafter, that the punishing authority should form an opinion. If any, other mode is adopted, it may lead to taking the delinquent officer by surprise. The counsel is justified in making a grievance that while expressing his opinion provisionally, the authority had already taken a decision to impose a punishment and even punishment was decided. This method as adopted would appear in violation of principle of natural justice. Following the dicta of law as laid down in Kunj CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21379 of 2008 -4- Behari's case (supra), I am inclined to hold that the petitioner was denied fair opportunity to defend himself. The impugned order, thus, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The respondents, however, would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner from the stage where the dissent note is to be recorded. After recording dissent note, an opportunity be afforded to the petitioner to say whatever he may wish to against the reasons so recorded in the dissent note and thereafter, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. November 15, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE