IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9137 of 2008. Reserved on: 26.11.2010. Decided on : 15.12.2010. Varinder Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Divisional Manager, Forest Working Division, Chamba was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He exonerated the petitioner vide enquiry report dated 21.09.1997. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority dis-agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reducing the petitioner to a lower stage in the time scale of five years with immediate effect and he had to earn further annual increment after completion of one year service from the date the penalty was completed. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that office order dated 23.05.2002 is illegal, arbitrary and has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to him, if the disciplinary authority did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer, he had to record tentative reasons and the copy whereof was required to be supplied to the delinquent and only after receiving the representation against the tentative reasons, the final findings are to be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that the office order dated 23.05.2002 has been issued in accordance with law. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 5. In fact, the petitioner has been absolved /exonerated of the charges by the Inquiry Officer on 21.09.1997. The Disciplinary Authority, as noticed above, had disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority had neither recorded its tentative reasons while disagreeing with the inquiry report nor has supplied the same to the petitioner. It is settled law by now that the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the inquiry report, must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its final findings. Admittedly, in this case, this procedure has not been followed by the Disciplinary Authority, which has led to the violation of principles of natural justice. - 3 - 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Others Versus Chief Personnel (Disciplinary Authority), Punjab National Bank and Others, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84 have held that the Disciplinary Authority must record its tentative reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report and thereafter the reasons are required to be supplied to the delinquent officer to represent against the same and only after receipt of the representation, the findings are to be recorded. Their Lordships have held as under: “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 inquiry 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 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 favourable 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 representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-III, dated 23.05.2002 is quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to - 4 - the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and the discussion/observations made hereinabove, if they so chooses. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 15,2010. (bhupender) - 5 -