THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.19092 of 2009 27-07-2010 BETWEEN; Union of India, rep. By Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalata Sangathan, New Delhi and others ...Petitioners vs. Smt.V.Varalakshmi and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 19092 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The respondents in O.A.No.419 of 2008 are before this Cou aggrieved by the order dated 23-06-2009 allowing the application of th 1st respondent herein and quashing the order of the disciplinary authorit dated 04-01-2007 imposing on the charged officer the penalty of stoppag of one increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect an the order of the appellate authority dated 05-06-2008 modifying the penalt to one of stoppage of one increment for two years again without cumulativ effect. The charged officer (the 1st respondent) joined the Kendriy Vidyalaya Sangathan on 04-01-1988 as a Librarian. While working a such at Picket, Secunderabad Branch, she was served the charge mem dated 22-12-2006 alleging six facets of misconduct; including failure t issue library books to the students regularly, asking the students to clea the tables, library etc., and misbehaving with students and forcing them t do manual work in the library; (b) despite repeated instructions an warnings from the Principal, failing to maintain teacher’s diary and th library accession register; (c) selling old newspapers without following th prescribed procedure; (d) non-cooperation with the members of the stoc verification team for preparing the list of books for condemnation; (e) failin to maintain the library in a clean and neat ambiance; and (f) using the key of the Library. The charge memo was issued under Rule 16 of the Centra Civil Services (CCA) Rules,1965 ( for short 1965 Rules) allegin dereliction of duties, negligence and carelessness in work. The charge officer submitted an explanation on 30-12-2006 denying each of th allegations. The charged officer claimed to have requested the disciplinar authority to furnish all the documents referred to in the charge memo and personal hearing before imposition of any penalty. On the admitted factual scenario however no inquiry was conducte and by an order dated 04-01-2007 the disciplinary authority imposed th penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of three years withou cumulative effect and by another order of the same date transferred th charged officer to Kendriya Vidyalaya ITBP, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh The charged officer was relieved and joined the transferred station an thereafter made a representation, which was rejected by the employe Aggrieved by the order of transfer and the punishment imposed by th order of the disciplinary authority dated 04-01-2007, the charged office filed O.A.No.187 of 2008 before the Tribunal. By the order dated 31-03 2008, O.A.No.187 of 2008 was disposed of preserving the liberty to th charged officer to make a representation on the transfer and to prefer a appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. The charged officer preferred an appeal on 15-04-2008 and wa offered a personal hearing. Her request for defence assistance wa rejected and a fresh date intimated for personal hearing of the charge officer. Eventually, by the order dated 05-06-2008 the appellate authorit allowed the appeal partly and modified the penalty to stoppage of on increment for two years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved whereby, th charged officer preferred O.A.No.419 of 2008 before the Tribunal. It requires to be noticed that though the charged officer claimed t have made a representation before passing of the final order by th disciplinary authority (i.e., 04-01-2007) there is a dispute on this factua aspect. However, the charged officer lodged a requisition under the Righ to Information Act, 2005 on 17-01-2007 seeking the document referred to in the charge memo dated 22-12-2006 on the basis of which th charges were intended to be sustained. The documents were furnished t her on 20-01-2007 (after the final order by the disciplinary authority). By the order impugned the Tribunal observed that Rule 16(b) of th 1965 Rules confers a discretion on the disciplinary authority to hold a inquiry in the manner laid down in Sub-rules 3 of 23 of Rule 14 ( th procedure mandatory in case of imposition of major penalties) in ever case where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry i necessary. No such inquiry was held notwithstanding that the factua matrix of the allegation and the findings of the disciplinary authorit warranted holding of such inquiry as a necessary concomitant of th principles of natural justice. The learned Tribunal noticed that a reading o the operative portion of the order of the appellate authority discloses tha the charges levelled against the applicant, namely, that she failed to issu library books to the children; failed to cooperate with members of the stoc verification committee; failed to maintain cleanliness in the Library an failed to maintain the accession register, have been apparently proved b documentary evidence furnished by the Principal and students, whic material was not communicated to the charged officer. This failur constitutes a fundamental transgression of the non-derogable obligation t afford fair and reasonable opportunity to the charged officer, concluded th Tribunal. We agree. The rule does not exclude nor prohibit the conduct of a inquiry even while imposing a minor penalty. The holding of an inquiry i an adjunct and process to conform to the non-derogable principles o natural justice, namely, affording of reasonable opportunity to a perso whose civil rights, career opportunities, the right to continue in publi employment, good behaviour as well as the right to reputation (which is a integral component of human dignity protected by the contours of Article 2 of the Constitution), are involved. There may be cases of alleged mino misconduct, which may not require a regular inquiry. A regular inquiry i however necessary where disputed facts are sought to be established o the basis of material which a charged officer is entitled to have knowledg of. In the context of the phraseology of Rule 16(b) of the 1965 Rules, it i apparent that a discretion is consecrated in the disciplinary authority t conduct an inquiry as postulated by the provisions of Sub-rules 3 to 23 o Rule 14. A discretion conferred on a public authority is a discretion of th law and not the discretion exercised at whim. The discretion should b exercised in conformity to the principles of fair play and the need to confirm to all overarching legal principles, of which a non-derogable principle i audi alterm partem which is an integer of Article 14 of the Constitution. Th failure of the disciplinary authority to confirm to this principle, in eschewin the conduct of inquiry has visited the charged officer with prejudice. Thi is what the Tribunal found and we see no reasons to disagree with it finding. It also requires to be noticed that the order of the disciplinar authority is perverse. The order dated 04-01-2007 is a classic illustration o failure to record any reasons. We consider it appropriate to extract th order of the disciplinary authority dated 04-01-2007 which reads as under “WHEREAS Smt V.Varalakshmi, Librarian, Kendriya Vidyalay Picket Secundrabad was informed of the proposal to take action agains her under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,1965 vide memorandum o even No.dt.22.12.2006. The statement of imputation of misconduct o misbehaviour on which the action was proposed to be taken was als enclosed with the aforesaid memorandum dated 22.12.2006 and the sai Smt V.Varalakshmi, Librarian was given an opportunity to make suc representation as she may wish to make against the proposal. Th misconduct on the part of said Smt.V.Varalakshmi Librarian was a under:- (a) failed to issue library books to the children regularly, asked th students to clean the tables, library etc. misbehaved wit the students and forced them to do manual work in th library. (b) Despite of repeated instructions/warnings of the Principal, sh did not maintain teacher’s diary, Library accession register (c) Sold the old newspapers without following the prescribe procedure; (d) Did not co-operate with the members of the stock verificatio team for preparing the list of books for condemnation. (e) Failed to maintain the library clean and neat. (f)She lost the keys of the Library. AND whereas Smt V Varalakshmi, Librarian has submitted he representation, which was received by one on 03-01-2007 throug courier, in which she has denied the charges. NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned informs her that Principal i the Disciplinary Authority for penalties (1) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the CC (CCA) Rules,1965 as per the Schedule II given in the Education Code fo KVs. Accordingly, the undersigned being the Disciplinary Authority afte taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, and i satisfied that the Smt.V.Varalakshmi, Librarian is guilty of the charge levelled against her since she failed to discharge the duties of a Libraria which amounts to disobeyal of the instructions of Superior Authority. Th undersigned has, therefore, decided to impose the penalty of withholdin of her next increment for a period of three years without cumulative effec upon Smt V.Varalakshmi, Librarian. The penalty of withholding of her next increment for a period thre years without cumulative effect is accordingly imposed up on Sm V.Varalakshmi, Librarian. A copy of this order is placed in the C.R folder of Smt.V Varalakshmi, Librarian.” The ipse dixit, that the disciplinary authority after taking into accoun the facts and circumstances of the case was satisfied that the charge officer was guilty of charges levelled against her is not a reason, it is conclusion. Reasons as pointed by the Supreme Court in Union of Indi Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor([1]) are the links between the facts on whic conclusions are based and the conclusions themselves. Conclusions ar no substitute for reasons. This is an additional reason why the charge officer ought to succeed. On the aforesaid analyses, there are no merits. The writ petition i accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 27th JULY 2010. TSNR [1] AIR 1978 SC 87