IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4517 of 2008. Reserved on: 30.04.2010. Decided on: 13.05.2010. Sh. R.K. Chauhan. … Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner vide memorandum No.13935 dated 19.9.1994 under the H.P.M.C. Employees Service Bye Laws 6.17 (I) and (2) for causing immense loss of goodwill as well as financial loss to the Corporation and fruit growers due to leakage of Ammonia gas at Cold storage Patlikuhl on 9.7.1994. 2. Inquiry Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. Petitioner was given an opportunity vide letter dated 4.4.1995 to make representation against the inquiry report. He filed detailed reply on Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 10.4.1995. It will be pertinent to mention at this stage that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner so far as charges No.1 and 2 were concerned. The Inquiry Officer held that charge No.3 was proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, i.e. Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation disagreed with the report of Inquiry Officer so far as charges No.1 and 2 were concerned. He imposed, vide order dated 25.5.1995, the penalty of recovery to the tune of Rs.53,410/- i.e. 50% of total losses suffered by the Corporation, to be recovered from his pay in 35 monthly instalments of Rs.1500/- each and 36th instalment of Rs.910/-. He also ordered that the period of suspension, i.e. with effect from 8.8.1994 to 9.4.1995 will be treated as non-duty period and he was not held entitled to any pay and allowances except what he had already received as subsistence allowance. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation. The Board of Directors substituted the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority by imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect with effect from 25.5.1995. 3. Mr. M.L. Sharma, leaned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. He then contended that the disciplinary authority was required to furnish the petitioner the tentative reasons before it recorded its final findings while disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. He then contended that the appellate authority has already reduced the penalty. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. - 3 - 5. Petitioner has been given opportunity vide memorandum dated 4.4.1995 to make representation against the inquiry report. He made a detailed representation on 10.4.1995. The Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner on charges No.1 and 2. He has held the petitioner guilty so far as charge No.3 is concerned. However, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion as per order dated 25.5.1995 that all the charges stood proved against the petitioner. It is settled law by now that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer has to record tentative reasons and these reasons are required to be supplied to the delinquent to enable him to make representation. It is only thereafter the final decision is to be taken by the disciplinary authority after considering the representation made by an employee against the tentative reasons, supplied to him. This legal proposition is no more res- integra in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others versus Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84. Their Lordships have held as under (para 19):- “The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7 (2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry 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 favourable conclusion of the enquiry 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 - 4 - 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.” 6. No other point was urged. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures A-10 and A-13, dated 25.5.1995 and 24.8.1996 respectively are quashed and set aside. The disciplinary authority shall now proceed with the matter in view of the observations made hereinabove. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. May 13, 2010. (sck).