1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 360/2001 Mr. Joaquim Menezes, L.D.C./Receptionist, Tourist Hostel, Vasco-da-Gama-Goa. ......... Petitioner. Versus. 1) Goa Tourism Development Corporation, through its Managing Director, having Office at Trionora Apartment, Panaji,Goa. 2) The Board of Directors of Goa Tourism Development Corporation, having Office at Trionora Apartment, Panaji,Goa. 3) State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, having Office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. ......... Respondents. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 13th June, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.) The petitioner has challenged the punishment imposed upon him 2 as being in violation of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (CCS CCA Rules), which reads as follows : “15. Action on the inquiry report (1) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provision of Rule 14, as far as may be. [(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant. (20A) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub- rules (3) and (4).] (3) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order 3 imposing any penalty on the Government servant. (4) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty on the Government servant.” 2. The petitioner was charged for misconduct while working with the respondent-Goa Tourism Development Corporation. Two articles of charges were levelled against him. First for bad behaviour with tourists. Second for not informing the Corporation about a conflicting interest of his wife. He was found guilty of the second article of charge by the Inquiring Authority. The inquiry report was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority which was called upon to take a decision. After considering the matter, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be held guilty of both the charges. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter forwarded a copy of the report to the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to submit his say within 10 days from the date of receipt of the communication. After the petitioner submitted his say on 28.10.1998, the 4 Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the first article of charge; also of which he had been held not guilty earlier. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the act of not forwarding the tentative reasons why the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the petitioner should be held guilty of the charge of which he has been found innocent, constitutes a violation of Rule 15 of the CCS CCA Rules reproduced above. The learned Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny that the tentative reasons for reversing the findings on Article I were not forwarded to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Pangam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 . The Supreme Court has, in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Judgment, held that the principles of natural justice demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. Indeed, there is violation of this rule of natural justice in the present case. More specifically, there is a clear violation of Rule 15. 5. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned Order dated 5 6.5.1999 and remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh decision, in accordance with law, after complying with Rule 15 of CCS CCA Rules. Rule made absolute accordingly. S.A. BOBDE, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.