Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Sinha, for the opposite parties.
The petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 24.2. 1998, which has been contained in annexure no. 18 at page- 71 of the writ petition. In pursuance of the charge sheet, an inquiry was conducted by Sri D.R. Gupta, the Senior Manager, who conducted the inquiry and submitted inquiry report before the disciplinary authority, who in turn did not agree, with the finding of the inquiry report and ordered another inquiry, which was conducted by Dr. S.C. Gupta, Principal, who was head of the Committee along with others. This inquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary order while agreeing with the finding of the inquiry officer, has passed the impugned order of punishment, which is contained in annexure- 30 to the amendment application. By this punishment order, one increment of the petitioner has been permanently stopped. It is this impugned order under challenge before this Court.
Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava has challenged this impugned order of punishment firstly on the ground that the punishment order does not even describe the charge against the petitioner and secondly the disciplinary authority has not discussed any finding of the inquiry officer and has also not detailed as to why and on what count, he comes to the conclusion and agrees with the finding of the inquiry officer. The impugned order of punishment is absolutely vague. Neither the charge has been discussed nor findings have been detailed, nor any conclusion has been drawn. The disciplinary authority has failed to give any reason, by which he has reached to a particular conclusion. Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava says that although disciplinary authority, writes in the punishment order that the principle of natural justice were followed but he fails to mention as to when and in what manner inquiry was conducted; whether any date, time and place was ever fixed for any oral inquiry or any opportunity was ever given to the petitioner to adduce evidence in her favour. In the absence of any date, time and place being fixed, how the inquiry has been completed and how the disciplinary authority has proceeded to punish the petitioner, is difficult to understand.
Sri P.K. Sinha, has defended the punishment order vehemently. He pointed out from the inquiry report, that finding of the inquiry officer has come that the petitioner remained present throughout the inquiry. He further says that the inquiry was conducted in fair manner. Every opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend her case but she was adamant not to cooperate. Accordingly, inquiry officer has submitted the finding that the charges against the petitioners are proved.
I have gone through the inquiry report and the finding of the disciplinary authority.
The inquiry officer has failed to prove any charge as it should have been proved. Finding of the inquiry officer is a subjective satisfaction based on conjuncture and surmises, than on the basis of evidence. Not a single employee of the school has been produced as witness in the inquiry; no specific document has been proved in the manner it should be proved in an disciplinary inquiry. The inquiry has been made in a most cursory manner, which cannot be treated to be fair. It is very well established that even where the delinquent employee does not file any reply or does not cooperate, the charges have to be proved by the inquiry officer independently, on the basis of evidence and the documents.
This Court comes to a definite conclusion that the order passed by the Manager, HAL, dated 28.12.2004 as contained in annexure- 30 to the writ petition, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Manager, HAL, dated 28.12.2004 as contained in annexure -30 to the writ petition is, hereby, quashed. Necessary consequence to follow.
Order Date :- 22.9.2010 Sadiq