HRindiaonline.com — forum where potential meets opportunities

The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 26.9.1996 exonerating him from the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, however, differed called upon the Appellant to make his representation in his defence to the grounds of disagreement before a final decision is taken.

By a letter dated 13.3.1997, the Appellant prayed for grant of 10 days time. The same was allowed. Yet again on 25.3.1997, he prayed for further 10 days' time to submit his representation which was also allowed. On or about 7.4.1997, i.e., after the expiry of 10 days time from 25.3.1997, he filed another application for granting 3-4 days time. According to the Disciplinary Authority, the order of punishment was already prepared on 8.4.1997 whereas the said application dated 7.4.1997 reached later.

The contention of the Disciplinary Authority is that he was informed by an order dated 21.3.1997 that no further opportunity would be granted to him. The Disciplinary Authority contends that the said order was served on the Appellant but according to him he did not receive the same.

The Appellant, however, submitted a memorandum on 10.4.1997 before the Disciplinary Authority stating in details as to why the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer in his report should be upheld. The said memorandum admittedly was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority.

The Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 8.4.1997 directed dismissal of the Appellant from service:

The Inspector appealed to the Commissioner who upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority. He approached the CAT which dismissed his application observing,

. The Appellate Authority on the said premise agreed with the observations of the Disciplinary Authority that both the charges have been established16. An Original Application was filed by the Appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was marked as OA No. 1106 of 2000. The said original application was dismissed only stating:�the Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to the Court or Tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority, or the Appellate Authority as the case may be. The function of the Court/ tribunal is none of judicial review, the purpose of which is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment."

The Inspector did not succeed in the High Court too and so he is in appeal before the Supreme Court.

It is not disputed that the Disciplinary Authority had issued a show cause notice. It is also true that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said notice, the Appellant did not file any show cause. However, it stands admitted that a show cause was filed by the Appellant herein prior to communication of the order. The Disciplinary Authority states that the Appellant was communicated the order dated 21.3.1997 that no further time would be granted, but the Appellant, on the other hand, contends that that he did not receive the same. The Tribunal, before whom the said contention was raised by the respondent for the first time, did not go into the same nor was it established by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority that the said communication dated 21.3.1997 reached the hands of the Appellant before he made a request for grant of 3-4 days' further time by letter dated 25.3.97.
The Disciplinary Authority did not arrive at any independent finding for passing the order of dismissal dated 8.4.1997. He proceeded on the basis that as the Appellant had not filed a reply, he must be held to have accepted the points on the basis whereof the Disciplinary Authority recorded his disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
The Disciplinary Authority, however, failed to consider that the grounds on which he had disagreed with the Inquiry Officer forming the basis for issuing the show cause notice dated 17.2.1997, was a tentative one. Only because the Appellant did not file a reply, the same would not mean that he was not required to consider the materials brought on records by the parties before the Disciplinary Authority, afresh. He was obliged to do so.
it is now well settled that the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with by the Disciplinary Authority.He was also required to apply his mind to the materials on record.
The inquiry report was in favour of the Appellant but the Disciplinary Authority proposed to differ with such conclusions and, thus, apart from complying with the principles of natural justice it was obligatory on his part, in absence of any show cause filed by the Appellant, to analyse the materials on records afresh. It was all the more necessary because even the CBI, after a thorough investigation in the matter, did not find any case against the Appellant and thus, filed a closure report.
It isnot a case where the Appellant was exonerated by a criminal court after a full fledged trial by giving benefit of doubt. It was also not a case where the Appellant could be held guilty in the disciplinary proceedings applying the standard of proof as preponderance of the probability as contrasted with the standard of proof in a criminal trial, i.e., proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
the CBI even did not find a prima facie case against him.
The Disciplinary Authority in the peculiar situation was obligated to apply his mind on the materials brought on record by the parties in the light of the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer.
He should not have relied only on the reasons disclosed by him in his show cause notice which, it will bear repetition to state, was only tentative in nature.
As the Appellate Authority in arriving at his finding, laid emphasis on the fact that the Appellant has not filed any objection to the show cause notice; ordinarily, this Court would not have exercised its power of judicial review in such a matter, but the case in hands appears to be an exceptional one as the Appellant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer
Even otherwise also the jurisdiction of a Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter would remain with him till it goes out of his hands which would mean the order is dispatched, as in the case of order of suspension.

Therefore the Supreme Court directed the Disciplinary Authorityto consider the matter afresh. It was also directed that the appellant would be deemed to be under suspension till the Disciplinary Authority decides the case. The question of payment of backwages, would depend upon the ultimate order that may be passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

The Inspector is back with the Disciplinary Authority seven years after he was dismissed from service.

Inspector of Central Excise charged with DA of Rs 2.81 lakh - CBI does not find prima facie case - SC sends the case back to D A