IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11935 of 2008. Decided on: 27 th December, 2010. Ratti Ram. …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. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : 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. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 14.08.2001. He was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner on 15.01.2004. He preferred an appeal an appeal against the order dated 15.01.2004. However, the same has also been rejected by the Principal Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 17.08.2004 (Annexure A-8). Thereafter, the review petition was also dismissed by the Principal Secretary (Education) vide order dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure A-9). 2. 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 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No 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. 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.” 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-8, dated 17.08.2004 and A-9, dated 31.12.2004 are quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to 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 27, 2010. (bhupender)