JUDGEMENT
S.B.Sinha, C.J. -
(1.)This application is directed against a judgment dated 3-5-2000 passed by the A.P. State Administrative Tribunal whereby and whereunder the petitioner's original application was dismissed. The question that arose before the learned Tribunal was as to whether the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer was not bound to state reasons which impelled him to differ with the finding of the enquiry officer. The learned Tribunal referred to Rule 21(4) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules and inter alia held:
"A reading of Rule (2) and (3) of Rule 21 makes it crystal clear that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer can only impose a minor punishment referred in clause (i) to (v) of Rule 9, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 22. Rule 22(e) makes it crystal clear that consulting the Commission is a must where such consultation is necessary. Therefore, it is obvious that while imposing a major penalty specified in clause (vi) to (ix) of Rule 9, consultation of Public Service Commission is a must. The disciplinary authority has got power to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer for the reasons to be recorded and in the present case the appointing authority has given - reasons but acted on the procedure prescribed under Rule 21(4) which is for inflicting the major penalties. In the present case the punishment imposed is a major penalty of reduction to a lower grade and, therefore, consultation of Service Commission is necessary. The impugned order has been passed without consulting the Public Service commission by the disciplinary authority."
(2.)Before the learned Tribunal reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena was placed but the same was distinguished on the ground that it related to a matter where a minor punishment was imposed. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to address itself the right question, namely, as to whether the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer was bound to disclose the reasons for such disagreement so as to enable the delinquent officer to meet the same. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by a recent judgment of the Apex Court in S.B.I. and others wherein the Apex Court has relied upon a large number of decisions including Saxena's case wherein it was held:
"The next question, therefore, is as has been formulated earlier, whether the disciplinary authority was required to record its tentative reasons for disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it recorded its ultimate findings. This question is concluded by a 3- Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra (JT 1998 (5) SC 548). The Bench in the aforesaid case relied upon the earlier decision in the Institute of Chartered Accountants' case (JT 1997 (6) SC 607) as well as the Ram Kishan case (JT 1995 (7) SC 43) and came to hold that the view expressed in S.S.Kaushal 1995 (5) SLR 18) and M.C Saxena case (JT 1998 (2) SC 103 = AIR 1998 SC 1150) do not lay down the correct law. Mr. Sundaravadna, however, brought to our notice yet another 3-Judge Bench decision in the case of Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan (JT 1998 (3) SC 118) and contended that a different view has been taken in the aforesaid decision in Union Bank of India case, we find that the question which arose for consideration in the Punjab National Bank case was not really there before the Court and the Court was examining the question as to what would be the effect, if copy of the enquiry report is not furnished to the delinquent employee. The Court obviously relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (JT 1993(6) SC 1)."
(3.)Having regard to the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the disciplinary authority was bound to record its tentative reasons for disagreement while disagreeing with the findings of a enquiry officer and give a delinquent officer an opportunity to represent, before it records its ultimate finding.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.