CIVIL APPEAL 11751 of 2008 on 22 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11751 of 2008

Decided on: 23[rd] December, 2010.

Tarveej Kumar Sharma.

…Petitioner.

-Versus-

Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation and Others.

…Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1]No.

__________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. :Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 1[st]December, 2000. Shri H.K. Sarwata, H.P.F.S. was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry and has exonerated the petitioner. The operative portion of the inquiry report reads thus:

“On the basis of above mentioned facts it is concluded that the charged officials can not be held responsible for delay in working of lots and financial losses to the Forest Corporation. The charge of falsification of record has not been supported with sufficient documentary evidences.

On the basis of evidences, statement of witnesses and heir analysis with the record, the charges framed against the delinquent officials has not been proved.”

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.

2. However, the Disciplinary Authority without recording tentative reasons of dis-agreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer, issued a memorandum to the petitioner to file reply. Petitioner filed reply to the same. However, fact of the matter is that once the petitioner has been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority wanted to dis-agree with the report of the Inquiry Officer, in that eventuality, the Disciplinary Authority was required to record its tentative reasons and thereafter, the same were required to be conveyed to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation and only thereafter, the final findings could be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. In this case, this procedure has not been followed by the Disciplinary Authority, which has led to the violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Others Versus Chief Personnel (Disciplinary Authority), Punjab National Bank and Others,

(1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84 have held that the Disciplinary Authority must record its tentative reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report and thereafter the reasons are required to be supplied to the delinquent officer to represent against the same and only after receipt of the representation, the findings are to be recorded. Their Lordships have held as under:

“19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7 (2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.”

4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-7, dated 22.12.2004 is quashed and set aside. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. No costs.

December 23, 2010. (bhupender)

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge