Full Text
Through: Mr.Anuj Sharma with Mr. M.K.
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
Through: None
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case Inquiry Officer gave his report dated 15.3.1996 exonerating the petitioner. It is argued that no doubt the disciplinary authority has powers to disagree with the findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer, however, it is necessary that a speaking order has to be passed as to why the disciplinary authority differs with the findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer, and which has not happened in the present case, inasmuch as, the disciplinary 2013:DHC:6455 authority’s order dated 03.7.1998 is a non-speaking order which neither gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer, but the same also does not refer to the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner.
2. It is also argued that the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.3.1999 reduced the penalty, but once again the said order is a nonspeaking order which does not give reasons and does not deal with the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner.
3. I find that in the facts of this case there is violation of principles of natural justice. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 has held that every quasi-judicial authority must pass a speaking order, inasmuch as only when reasons are given, the higher authority or the courts know whether the reasons given are valid or genuine reasons. A speaking order is also required because in circumstances such as the present, a charged official is entitled to know the reasons why his contentions have been rejected as also the findings and conclusions of the Inquiry Officer.
4. In view of the above, impugned order dated 03.7.1998 of the Disciplinary Authority and of the Appellate Authority dated 1.3.1999 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to pass a speaking order in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in case of S. N. Mukherjee (supra) within a period of four months of the receipt of the present order.
5. I may clarify that I have not observed one way or the other on merits of the matter and this would be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
6. The petition stands disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 16, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. KA