JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is plaintiffs second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit has been dismissed.
2. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 27.11.1989 stopping his five increments with cumulative effect is illegal, void ab-initio and inoperative in the eyes of law. Plaintiff also challenged order dated 25.4.1991 rejecting his appeal, being illegal, inoperative and not binding on his rights.
3. Plaintiff (appellant herein) was working as Inspector, Co-operative Societies. On 12.1.1988, plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet in which seven charges were levelled against him. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet explaining that the charges levelled against him are false and fabricated. Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with his explanation appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. Inquiry officer found all charges proved against the plaintiff. On submission of the enquiry report, show – cause notice dated 5.6.1989 was served upon the plaintiff as to why his service be not terminated. Plaintiff was also supplied a copy of the enquiry report. Plaintiff submitted a detailed reply explaining each and every charge and contended that the finding of the Inquiry Officer is contrary to the facts explained on record. Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 27.11.1989 ordering stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. Plaintiff filed statutory appeal but vide order dated 25.4.1991, it was rejected. Plaintiff instituted civil suit for declaration that order of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and the order rejecting the appeal of the plaintiff are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, void and inoperative. Suit was contested by the State on the ground that the order of punishment was passed against the plaintiff after holding proper enquiry and affording of an opportunity of hearing. Trial Court held that the order of stoppage of five increments was passed after providing full opportunity and the Inquiry Officer had considered all the aspects of the case and a detailed report in this regard was submitted to Disciplinary Authority. In appeal, the finding of the trial Court has been affirmed by the first appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff.
4. The only contention urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff is that the orders of the disciplinary Authority and also the appellate Authority are not speaking one and they have failed to apply their mind with regard to the submissions made by the plaintiff to the correctness of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on various charges levelled against the plaintiff. Against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State has contended that the Inquiry Officer had given full opportunity to the plaintiff to prove his innocence and the order of the disciplinary Authority being based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, cannot be set aside simply on the ground that he had failed to consider the submissions made by the employee with regard to the correctness of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
5. It is now well settled that neither the finding nor the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer are binding on the disciplinary Authority. If there are charges against the employee, it is for the disciplinary Authority to be satisfied that the employee is guilty and deserves punishment proposed. The satisfaction of the Inquiry Officer cannot take place of the satisfaction of the disciplinary Authority, as this would amount to his acting in a mechanical way. After the report is received, the disciplinary Authority is entitled to consider the report and the evidence led against the delinquent employee. The disciplinary Authority may agree with the report or may differ either wholly or partially from the conclusions recorded in the report. The enquiry report along with the evidence recorded constitute material on which the disciplinary Authority has ultimately to act. In this case, plaintiff on receipt of the enquiry report and the show-case notice of the proposed punishment, submitted detailed reply in which he tried to explain that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on various charges are not supportable by material on record of the Inquiry Officer. Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the reply and after giving opportunity of personal hearing recorded his conclusion in the following manner:-
“4. After going through the case in detail, considering the charges, the Inquiry Report and the reply furnished by the Inspector and the points raised by the Inspector at the time of persona! hearing, I am of the opinion that the Inspector was responsible for loose and in – effective supervision, nepotism and he failed to inspect the societies of his circle. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the charges and at the same time taking a lenient view, I,G.S. Cheema, IAS, Registrar, Co – operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, hereby stop 5 future annual grade increments of Shri Dalbir Singh, Inspector, with cumulative effect.”
6. In appeal also, the Government did not consider the grounds which plaintiff had taken to challenge the enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary Authority and affirmed the order imposing punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect. Service rule requires that after the enquiry against delinquent has been completed and after the Disciplinary Authority has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the government employee shall, if the penalty imposed is a major penalty, be supplied with a copy of report of the Inquiry Authority and called upon to show cause within a reasonable time against a particular penalty proposed to be inflicted upon him. Any representation submitted by him in this behalf is to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary Authority before final orders are passed. Consideration of the enquiry report in the light of the representation made by the government employee cannot be taken to be a mere formality because fair play requires recording of reasons when order affects the right of a person. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the Authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional Authority or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether the Authority concerned acted fairly and justly to meet out justice to the aggrieved person. In this case, the order of the disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be speaking one as it has failed to apply its mind to the various submissions made by the plaintiff in regard to the findings of the Inquiry Officers. Since the order of the disciplinary Authority is not sustainable in law, the order of the appellate Authority is also liable to be quashed.
7. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed, judgment and decree of the Courts below is set aside and suit of plaintiff decreed. As a consequence thereof, order dated 27.11.1989 vide which five increments of the plaintiff were stopped with cumulative effect and order dated 25.4.1991 rejecting the appeal of the plaintiff, are hereby quashed, with a liberty to the disciplinary Authority to pass an order afresh on applying its mind to the reply submitted by the plaintiff to show-cause notice dated 5.6.1989 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff:
Appeal stands allowed in the terms indicated above. No costs.