A departmental disciplinary punishment imposed despite the enquiry officer finding charges unproven was quashed because the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement notice without furnishing recorded reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21659 of 2013
======================================================
Dilip Rajak S/O Late Chhatradhari Rajak Resident Of Village- Hardiya, PostSingar, Police Station- Rajauli In The District Of Nawada ... Petitioner
Versus
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Nawal Kishor Singh, SC II ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2023
Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21659 of 2013 dt.06-02-2023 2/5
2(III) alleging that certain aspects were not dealt enquiry officer with directions to petitioner to submit his representation along with supporting evidence with regard to the three points vide dated 7th January, 2013. Learned counsel submits that the facts mentioned in the show cause notice are his personal opinion whereas per law he was required to give his points of disagreement with regard to the each conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vrs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1987) 7 SCC 84 .
Patna High Court CWJC No.21659 of 2013 dt.06-02-2023 3/5
to whether the letter dated 07.01.2013 sent by the Director can be said to be disagreement notice as he has asked for explanation relating to three points from the petitioner along with evidence. In Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vrs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1987) 7 SCC 84 the same issue arose before the Apex Court and the Apex Court 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 favorable 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 a representation before the disciplinary authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.21659 of 2013 dt.06-02-2023 4/5
records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.
8. In (2013) 7 SCC 251 (S.P. Malhotra Vrs. Punjab
National Bank & Ors.) the Apex Court followed the judgment reported in (1987) 7 SCC 84 (supra) and observed as under :
“18 : In fact, not furnishing the copy of the recorded reasons for disagreement from the enquiry report itself causes the prejudice to the delinquent and therefore, it has to be understood in an entirely different context than that of the issue involved in ECIL (supra)”.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21659 of 2013 dt.06-02-2023 5/5
consideration the settled law laid down by the Apex Court, the appellate order is also not sustainable and is accordingly quashed.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)
Shamshad/Item No. 47
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 17.02.2023 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
1 issue framed by the court
Was the disciplinary authority's disagreement notice valid where it did not furnish recorded reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vrs. Kunj Behari MisraRelied on¶23
(1987) 7 SCC 84 · Who else cites this
S.P. Malhotra Vrs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.Relied on¶28
(2013) 7 SCC 251 · Who else cites this
Dilip Rajak
The State Of Bihar
The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Bihar, Patna
The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Bihar, Patna
The Joint Agriculture Director-Cum-Conducting Officer, Magadh Division, Gaya
The District Agriculture Officer, Aurangabad
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
