IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 7140 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.5.2009. Satbir Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondent-State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner was serving as Driver in the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar-II. He was served with a charge sheet and later on a departmental enquiry was instituted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and concluded that no charge is proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was exonerated. During the period the petitioner was facing the departmental enquiry, he was placed under suspension and remained suspended from 20.12.2005 to 8.10.2008, though, subsistence allowance was paid to him. Respondent no.2, the punishing authority after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner communicated that he is not agreeing with the enquiry report. Reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner and respondent no.2 passed the impugned order dated CWP. No. 7140 of 2009 -2- 18.9.2008 whereby he has imposed the penalty of recovery of the alleged loss from the salary of the petitioner. The aforesaid order was followed by another order dated 9.1.2009 and the petitioner has been allowed only the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The thrust of arguments of Mr. Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing both the orders, respondent no.2 has not recorded any reason much less a valid reason while disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer. His further contention is that once the Enquiry Officer has exonerated, there was no material before the punishing authority/disciplinary authority, who have ordered recovery from the petitioner particularly when he has not been found responsible for any loss to the Corporation. I have carefully perused the order dated 18.9.2008, whereby recovery has been ordered as also the order dated 9.1.2009 whereby the petitioner has been allowed only the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. In none of these orders a legal and valid reason has been recorded either for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer or any other count. It is settled preposition of law that the disciplinary authority has the right to disagree with the Enquiry Officer but while doing so two conditions have to be fulfilled. One to afford the opportunity of being heard to the delinquent official and second is to record the reasons. In the present case, though, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, however, the disciplinary/punishing authority has failed to record any reason for its disagreement with the Enquiry Officer or for imposing the punishment of recovery. CWP. No. 7140 of 2009 -3- In view of the above circumstances, the impugned orders, referred to above are not sustainable in law. The same are hereby quashed. However, the case is remitted back to the punishing/disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, in case the petitioner wishes to be heard in person, he may be provided such opportunity. Disposed of as such. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 12.5.2009 lucky