Disciplinary Authority Must Record Reasons If Disagree With Enquiry Authority: Madras High Court

Background Facts

The employee was issued a charge memorandum on 21.04.2017. He was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 17,000 from three individuals in connection with his official duties. The charges were denied by the employee in his explanation. An oral enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer's report dated 23.05.2017 concluded that the charges were not proven.

Despite the Enquiry Officer's findings, a further show-cause notice was issued to the employee on 27.09.2017. The employee submitted his explanation on 13.10.2017, denying the charges. Subsequently, an order dated 09.10.2023 was issued by the disciplinary authority (District Collector, Villupuram) imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the employee. A statutory appeal was filed by the employee on 27.11.2023, which was not addressed by the employer.

Aggrieved by the same, a writ petition was filed by the employee, seeking to quash the dismissal order, claiming it was arbitrary and illegal. He also sought orders to permit his retirement from service effective from 30.04.2017, with all due service and monetary benefits, including pensionary benefits with 12% interest per annum.

It was argued by the employee that when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer's report, it did not provide the employee with a detailed explanation of the grounds for disagreement. It was claimed by the employee that a proper second show-cause notice, which should have included the tentative findings and reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report, was not issued to him. Without such a notice, the employee was deprived of the chance to submit an informed explanation to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the Enquiry Officer's favourable findings.

On the other hand, it was contended by the employer that a proper show-cause notice was issued to the employee on 27.09.2017 after the Enquiry Officer's report. It was argued that this notice called upon the employee to submit any further explanation. It was further argued that the employee's explanation was duly considered before issuing the dismissal order.

It was pointed out by employer that the employee had already filed a statutory appeal on 27.11.2023 against the dismissal order. It was contended that the interference by court was not needed at this stage as the appellate authority was yet to decide on the matter.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the disciplinary authority did not issue a proper second show-cause notice to the employee. The notice should have included the tentative findings and specific reasons for the authority's disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report. It was found by the court that the employee was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the reasons for disagreement. The case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra was relied upon by the court, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that whenever a disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of an enquiry authority on any charge, it must first record its tentative reasons for disagreement and give the delinquent officer an opportunity to respond. The findings of the enquiry officer must be shared with the delinquent officer, who can then try to convince the disciplinary authority to accept the enquiry officer's conclusions.

It was further observed by the court that the disciplinary authority did not impartially consider the employee's explanation before issuing the dismissal order. This failure further reinforced the court's view that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed. The case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra was relied upon, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that a delinquent employee has the right to be heard not only during the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer but also when the disciplinary authority reviews those findings. If the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry officer's favourable findings for the employee, it must provide the employee with the reasons for disagreement and an opportunity to respond.

It was held that the dismissal order dated 09.10.2023, had procedural lapses and therefore it was quashed by the court. The employer was directed to proceed afresh from the stage of issuing a proper second show-cause notice. It was instructed by the court that the second show-cause notice should contain the findings of the disciplinary authority and the reasons for disagreement. The employee should be given the opportunity to submit his explanation regarding the same.

It was further held by the court that the employee's explanation should be impartially considered before making a final decision. With these observations, the Writ Petition was allowed.

Case No. : W.P.No.11754 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel, for Mrs.V.Ambika

Counsel for the Respondents : S.Balmurugan, Government Advocate