CWP No. 12915 of 2005 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12915 of 2005
Date of Decision: 30-07-2008
P.K. Prashar ......Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Shri T.P.S. Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order
dated 25.12.2003 (Annexure P.12) passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the
Tribunal’) in an Original Application filed by the petitioner and to the
order dated 23.2.2005 (Annexure P.14) passed in the review application
filed by the petitioner to seek review of the earlier order passed by the
Tribunal.
The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 29.12.1994. The first
allegation was that goods worth Rs.3,350/- were found in excess than
the goods already examined and reported by one Surbir Singh Jaimal
Singh, holder of Afgan passport. The another allegation was that the
goods worth Rs.850/- were found from petitioner and thus, he has kept
goods, which were not authorised by law.
The petitioner denied the charges but an Inquiry Officer was
appointed, who has given his report (Annexure P.2) on 21.11.1996. The
CWP No. 12915 of 2005 (2)
said inquiry report was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and a
disagreement note was communicated to the petitioner vide
communication dated 25.2.1999. The petitioner submitted a detailed
reply. But to an order of punishment of censure was imposed upon the
petitioner vide order dated 5.4.1999. The said order was maintained in
appeal and revision as well.
The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
challenging the order of punishment but the same remained
unsuccessful before the Tribunal vide order Annexure P.12. The
petitioner challenged the order passed by the Tribunal before this Court
raising an argument that no specific reasons have been recorded in the
disagreement note and that the opinion of the Central Vigilance
Commission, taken by the disciplinary authority has not been
communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner
was withdrawn to enable the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by way
of a review application as the points raised before this Court were not
raised before the Tribunal. Consequently, the review application was
filed, which has been declined on the ground that the Original
application has been decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances
brought out in the Original Application and the pleadings made during
the course of arguments. It was found that the inquiry has been
conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules and after following the
principles of natural justice and that the applicant was given due
opportunity to explain his conduct and was also furnished the reasons
for disagreement by the Disciplinary authority along with the report of
the Inquiry Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the
reasons of disagreement recorded are nothing but the charges, which
were part of the charge-sheet. The Disciplinary Authority has not
recorded any single reason to disagree with the finding recorded by the
CWP No. 12915 of 2005 (3)
Inquiry Officer. The order communicating the dissent with the Inquiry
Officer’s report reads as under:-
“Please find enclosed Inquiry Report dated 21.11.96
submitted by the Inquiring authority in the above
referred case.
2. The undersigned, being disciplinary authority in
the case, is not in agreement with the report of
Inquiring Authority to the extent that while functioning
as Baggage Officer at Land Customs Station, Attari
Rail on Counter No. 2 on 30.5.1994 Sh. P.K. Prashar
did not properly examine the baggage of incoming
passenger namely Sh. Surbir Singh, which on re-
examination was found excess worth Rs.3530/- and
further he had also kept a card board box containing
goods valued at Rs.850/- in the drawer of the Counter
No.2 which he admitted, and thereafter failed to bring
it to the notice of the Preventive Staff of the station till
the same was recovered by the preventative staff on
checking of the drawer of the said counter.
3. Therefore, he failed to maintain devotion to duty
and, is liable for penal action under CCS (CCA) Rules.
4. He is, therefore, directed to submit within 10
days of receipt of this letter his written statement of
defence on the above points as well as on the Inquiry
Report. In case no communication is received within
the stipulated period the case will be decided on the
basis of evidence available on record.”
A perusal of the said note shows that the Disciplinary
Authority has not adverted to any of the findings recorded by the Inquiry
Officer to give any reasons as to why such findings are not sustainable,
but proceeded to impose the punishment of censure. It only reproduces
the allegations as contained in the charge-sheet. Such aspect is
apparent on record. Therefore, the said reasons of disagreement are in
violation of the principles of natural justice as explained by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari
CWP No. 12915 of 2005 (4)
Misra, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84. Reasons of disagreement
are to be recorded in respect of findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
Without discussing evidence or findings, mere reproduction of charges
does not satisfies the requirement of reasoned disagreement note.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the process adopted by the
Disciplinary Authority violates the principles of natural justice and
cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the orders
passed by the Tribunal (Annexures P.12 and P.14), cannot be sustained
in law. The same are accordingly set aside, while setting aside the the
order of punishment of censure and consequent orders passed in appeal
and revision as well. After setting aside the aforesaid orders, the matter
is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the report of
the Inquiry Officer and to take further action, as may be permissible in
accordance with law.
Disposed of in the above terms.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
30-07-2008
ds