JUDGMENT
Narayan Roy, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. Both these writ applications have been heard together, as common question has arisen for consideration, and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. These writ applications are directed against the orders, as contained in Annexures 23 and 15, respectively, both dated 30th September, 2002 whereby and whereunder certain punishments have been imposed upon the petitioners on conclusion of the departmental proceedings.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the departmental proceedings the charges levelled against the petitioners were not proved and the enquiry officer, faced with this situation, exonerated these petitioners saying that prima facie involvement of the petitioners is not proved from the materials on record vide his reports, as contained in Annexures 20 and 12, respectively, and the disciplinary authority, on the contrary, held that the charges have been proved against the petitioners, and, accordingly, passed the orders of punishment, as contained in Annexures 23 and 15, respectively, without recording sufficient reasons for his difference with the enquiry reports. Learned Counsel further submits that in a situation when the enquiry officer exonerates the delinquent, the disciplinary authority may differ with same but he must assign sufficient reasons for the same and that should be reflected from the order itself.
5. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the cases justifying the action taken by the disciplinary authority. Learned G.P. 9, with reference to the counter-affidavits, submits that even though sufficient reasons have not been assigned by the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment, an opportunity was given to the petitioners to represent their respective cases as to why they should not be punished by way of second show cause notice.
6. I have perused the enquiry reports, as continued in Annexures 20 and 12, respectively, and also the impugned orders of punishment as contained in Annexures 23 and 15. From Annexures 20 and 12, respectively, it is manifestly clear that the enquiry officer, prima facie, did not find the involvement of the petitioners. From Annexures 23 and 15, respectively, it appears that the disciplinary authority has not assigned any reason as to on what account he differed with the enquiry reports.
7. It is settled by several judgments of this Court and the Apex Court that the disciplinary authority has jurisdiction to differ with the enquiry report but while doing so, he must assign sufficient reasons and give opportunity to the delinquent to represent his case. Second part of the requirement has been complied with, as second show cause notice was given to the petitioners but the first part of the requirement has not been complied with inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has not assigned any reason on the question of difference with the enquiry reports. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in 1998(7) Supreme Court Cases, 84.
8. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, the orders impugned as contained in Annexures 23 and 15, respectively, are held to be wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law.
9. In the result, these applications are allowed and the orders impugned, as contined in Annexures 23 and 15, respectively, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the same afresh in accordance with law.