Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioners. Sri Hemendra Pratap, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1.
With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
The respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department. A depaprtmental inquiry was initiated against him, and a charge sheet was served on him. Respondent No.1 gave a reply to the charges and lead evidence in his defence. The enquiry officer found that all the charges were not established. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 31.3.2006 disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer on charge Nos. 1 and 2 and gave reasons for disagreement. The respondent No.1 gave a reply to the show cause notice, after which disciplinary authority passed a punishment order dated 26.12.2007 by which a censure entry was awarded to opposite party No.1 and an amount of Rs. 2,18,603/- was ordered to be recovered from him as loss caused to the Government.
The State Public Services Tribunal has set aside the order on the ground that the show cause notice dated 31.3.2006 did not give the reasons for disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer and further on the ground that charge No.3 was neither established nor any reason of its disagreement was given. Instead the loss caused on account of negligence, forming part of charge No.4 has also been added in the total amount to be recovered from respondent No.1.
We have perused the show cause notice and find that reasons have been given in its disagreement with the findings of enquiry officer on charge Nos.1 and 2. The disciplinary authority found on charge no.1 that calculation for digging of earth were made separately and in charge No.4 it is found, that taking into account the nature of work, the engagement of 15 to 20 workers on the work was not practicable.
We find that the reasons were given by the disciplinary authority only in respect of disagreement with the enquiry officer on charge Nos. 1 and 2, and the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are factually incorrect. So far as adding the alleged loss to the State Government on Charge No.3 is concerned, since there was no disagreement recorded by the disciplinary authority on charge no.3 with the findings of the enquiry officer, and the amount of loss could not have been added to the total amount to be recovered from respondent No.1.
We therefore find that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 2.4.2009 in claim petition no.1661 of 2008 is set aside. The disciplinary authority will consider the reply of respondent No.1 to the show cause on charge Nos. 1 and 2 afresh in accordance with l material available on record. So far as charge No.3 is concerned, since the disciplinary authority did not record any reason for disagreement, the charge no.3 shall not be subject matter of enquiry any further.
We make it clear that we have not formed any opinion on the merits of the case. It will be open to the disciplinary authority to consider the matter on charge Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with law very expeditiously, and if possible within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010 nethra