ORDER
Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By virtue of this OA, an order of penalty dated 27.10.2003 and appellate order affirming the major punishment, are being assailed.
3. Applicant – a Wireman – was proceeded against a major penalty on the inquiry report where he was exonerated. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding and even taking a final view in the matter proposed the punishment. On an appeal, a major punishment imposed when confirmed gives right to the present OA.
4. Though several contentions are taken by the learned Counsel for applicant but at the outset it is stated that while disagreeing, the disciplinary authority has taken final stock of the matter by proposing punishment, which shows its pre-determination mind in passing the order, which cannot be countenanced in the wake of decision of the Apex Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharasthra and Anr. JT 1999 (6) SC 62.
5. Respondents learned Counsel vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that there is no infirmity in the procedure laid down and the punishment imposed is proportionate to the misconduct. However, when pointed out the above infirmity, no satisfactory reply has come forth.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material placed on record. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar in the matter of imposition of punishment, what is required legally is to a service of the charge sheet with an indication to take a final decision in the matter by the disciplinary authority. Even in the case of imposition of punishment, what is required is communication of the tentative reasons and thereafter a final order is to be passed. However, in the present case, while disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority almost with pre-determined mind established the charge and had gone to the extent of proposing the punishment to the applicant. This cannot be by any stretch is a tentative view or reason recorded. Accordingly, such an order cannot stand scrutiny of the law in the wake of a decision in Yoginath D. Bagde’s case (supra).
7. As a result thereof, the applicant has been prejudiced as the disciplinary authority has not acted with an independent application of mind, which does not indicate any fair play by the disciplinary authority.
8. The appellate authority while disposing of the appeal has not dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the matter, which is a procedural irregularity and mandated to be considered under Rule 47 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
9. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is partly allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Applicant is entitled to the consequential benefits. However, if so advised, respondents are at liberty to proceed further against the applicant from the stage of disagreement. No costs.