Disciplinary Authority Must Record Reasons For Disagreeing With Exoneration To Enable Employee To Defend Himself Effectively: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for disagreeing with the exoneration by the Inquiry Officer to enable the delinquent employee a chance to effectively defend himself.The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held “Recording of reasons in the show cause notice for disagreeing with the opinion...
The Allahabad High Court has held that Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for disagreeing with the exoneration by the Inquiry Officer to enable the delinquent employee a chance to effectively defend himself.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“Recording of reasons in the show cause notice for disagreeing with the opinion of inquiry officer has a definite purpose to subserve. It gives an opportunity to the delinquent employee to offer his explanation on the issues that have weighed with the disciplinary authority. In a case where the disciplinary authority does not record reasons for his disagreement with the opinion of the inquiry officer the delinquent employee will be denuded of his right to effectively explain his defense regarding reasons of disagreement.”
A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the respondent-employee. In the inquiry report, it was stated that charges 1, 2 and 3 were found not proved but the employee was held guilty for charges of temporary embezzlement.
Disagreeing the exoneration of the employee from the charges, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major punishment of reversion to basic pay on the employee.
The order of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged before the High Court on the grounds that by not stating the reasons for disregarding the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the employee was denied the opportunity to present his case. The Single Judge held that the punishment was unsustainable as no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to be heard.
The order of the Single Judge was challenged by the State.
Adjudicating on the appeal, the Court observed that while disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his report, the Disciplinary Authority had not stated any reasons. The Court held that by not giving the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had deprived the employee of an opportunity to defend himself effectively.
The Court relied on Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra where the Supreme Court held that
“When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the order of the Single Judge warranted no interference, and the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs. Shyam Kewal Ram 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 291 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217