WP/2184/1997 of NARAYANA REDDY Vs SECY.IRRIGATION AND CAD. HYDERABAD on 24 December 1997

O R D E R

Heard Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

The short question, which arises for consideration in this writpetition, is as to whether the disciplinary authority before disagreeingwith the findings of the enquiry officer is required to put the petitioneron notice and give him an opportunity of being heard.

Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Helperin the year 1975 and as a regular Helper with effect from 01-10-1977. He was promoted as a Lineman vide proceedings dated25.04.1994. He was issued charge memo dated 31.08.1994 toproduce his educational qualification certificates in original i.e.Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Master, Zilla Parishad HighSchool, Rajam. The petitioner contends that, in his explanationthereto, he had submitted that he never studied IX Class in ZillaParishad High School, that he studied VIII Class in Zilla ParishadHigh School, Kanathi, Visakhapatnam and that he subsequentlypassed S.S.C. in March, 1984, as a private candidate. Subsequently, vide Memo dated 15.09.1994, the petitioner was directed to producethe original S.S.C. certificate which he claims to have produced on29.09.1994. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed, videproceedings dated 05-10-1994, and the Enquiry Officer in his reportobserved that the charge levelled against the petitioner be dropped. Thereafter the first respondent, vide Memo dated 24.09.1997, calledupon the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment ofreversion to the lower cadre of Junior Lineman permanently should notbe imposed on him and that, after receipt of the petitioner’s explanationdated 24.09.1997, the impugned proceedings dated 01-01-1998 werepassed imposing on the petitioner the punishment of reversion to thelower post as Helper (presently Junior Lineman) permanently. Arepresentation filed by the petitioner on 17-01-1998 was pendingconsideration at the time of filing of the writ petition.

In the counter-affidavit, the merits of the dispute are dealt withas also to the report of the Vigilance Cell of the A.P.S.E.B., andimposition of the punishment is sought to be justified. It is necessary tonote that the Enquiry Officer (Divisional Engineer (Enquiries),Vijayawada, in his report dated 26-12-1995 held that, in view of thecircumstances explained in the report, the charge leveled against thepetitioner was not established and was dropped. The ExecutiveEngineer, in his proceedings dated 24-09-1997, observed that thereport of the Enquiry Officer had been examined carefully with

reference to the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, the explanationoffered by him and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that it wasnot proper to drop the charge. After holding the charge as proved, theDisciplinary Authority observed that as the charge relating toproduction of bogus educational qualification certificate was a gravemisconduct of a serious nature, the Vigilance department had alsoconfirmed the fact of production of bogus certificate, and it was clearthat the petitioner had produced a bogus certificate at the time ofappointment with the Board, he had, therefore, come to the provisionalconclusion to revert the petitioner to the lower cadre of Junior Linemanpermanently. The petitioner was directed to show cause as to why thesaid punishment should not be imposed on him for the gravity of thecharge. As noted above the Enquiry Officer, in his report, hascategorically held that the charge leveled against the petitioner wasnot established and was dropped. Since the Enquiry Officer has heldthe charge not established and as the disciplinary authority hasdisagreed with the findings of the Enquiry officer, an opportunity ofbeing heard was required to be given to the petitioner prior thereto. Asheld by the Supreme Court, in PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ANDOTHERS VS. KUNJ BEHARI MISRA[[1]]; YOGINATH D. BAGDE V.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER[[2]]and this Court in AHMED MOHIUDDIN V. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD AND OTHERS[[3]], in case where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer that thecharges are not proved, he is obligated to provide at that stage anopportunity to the delinquent to enable him to convince the disciplinaryauthority in respect of the findings recorded in his favour by the enquiryofficer, that the findings were justified and proper and a post decisionalopportunity of hearing was of no avail. In the present case, the noticeonly required the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not beimposed the punishment of reversion to the lower post of JuniorLineman permanently. The petitioner has not been afforded anopportunity to show cause as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officerin his favour should not be accepted or that the findings of the EnquiryOfficer were justified.

In view of the law down in the aforesaid judgments, theimpugned order of punishment is liable to be quashed. It is made clearthat this order shall not preclude the respondents from providing suchan opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter take action against himin accordance with law. It is also made clear that this Court has notexamined the merits of the case, and it is only on the short ground thatthe petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity to show causeas to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be accepted,has the writ petition been allowed.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in thecircumstances, without costs.

__________________________

RANGANATHAN, JDated: 04-04-2007vp

[1] AIR 1998 S.C. 2713 AIR 1998 S.C. 2713

[2] AIR 1999 S.C. 3734 AIR 1999 S.C. 3734

[3]2003 (4) ALD 7382003 (4) ALD 738

RAMESH