Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner while he was working as Conductor at Kozhikode Depot, in the service of the 2nd respondent Corporation. The allegation was that, he along with another Conductor of the same unit had created an unpleasant situation near the KSRTC Bus Stand premises, under the influence of liquor, on 29.5.2007 by quarrelling and misbehaving with co-workers in front of travelling public at the office premises. It is also alleged that the co- delinquent had threatened another Conductor standing in front of the KSRTC Canteen with a knife. The police had registered a case against both of them. It is alleged that the actions on the part of the petitioner and the other Conductor amounts to gross misconduct. A domestic enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was found guilty. The disciplinary authority, the 3rd respondent herein, had found that the enquiry report is acceptable and proposed punishment of increment bar for a period of two years with cumulative effect. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in this regard as per Ext.P3. No reply was received from the petitioner to the show cause notice. Finding that the nature of offence is very serious, the penalty proposed was confirmed . Eventhough the petitioner approached the appellate authority and further the revisional authority, the punishment imposed was confirmed concurrently, as per Exts. P5 and P6 orders. It is challenging Exts.P4, P5 and P6, this writ petition is filed. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the criminal case in which he was implicated as accused, for the offences punishable under section 51 A of the Kerala Police Act 1960 had ended up in an acquittal under section 256 of the Cr.PC. Hence it is contended that no punishment can be imposed on the basis that he was implicated as accused in a criminal case. It is further contended that there is no independent evidence adduced before the enquiry officer to prove the alleged drunkenness. Hence it is argued that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved before the enquiry officer.
3. It is to be noticed that the charge levelled against the petitioner is that of gross misconduct. The statement of allegation reveals that, he along with another Conductor had created an unpleasant situation near the KSRTC Bus Stand in front of the travelling public by quarrelling and misbehaving with co-workers. Further the co-delinquent threatened another Conductor with a knife. Hence it is evident that the disciplinary action was not initiated only on the allegation of drunkenness. Hence, the lack of any convincing evidence with respect to drunkenness at the relevant time, cannot be taken as a valid defence. So also, acquittal in the criminal case will not absolve the liability, because as observed in Ext.P6 order of the revisional authority, there is evidence to the effect that the police registered a case and laid a charge sheet alleging offence of misbehaving under intoxication of liquor. Hence merely relying on acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner cannot be exonerated.
4. Further contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the disciplinary action was initiated with non compliance of proper procedure. It is contended that the disciplinary authority ought to have furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and have sought his opinion before issuing show cause notice proposing penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Mohammed Ramzan Khan (AIR 1991 (SC) 471) to canvass such a proposition. There is no case for the petitioner that a copy of the enquiry report was not served along with show cause notice. But what is contended is that, the enquiry report ought to have been furnished on an earlier stage, before proposing the punishment through show cause notice. Such an argument, according to this court, is totally misconceived. When the enquiry report is furnished before the disciplinary authority he can either accept the findings therein or can disagree with the findings. In case the disciplinary authority is accepting the findings in the enquiry report, he has to proceed further by issuing notice to the delinquent to show cause as to why punishment as proposed cannot be imposed. Along with such show cause notice it is mandatory to furnish copy of the enquiry report. Such a procedure is to facilitate the delinquent to contend before the disciplinary authority as to why the enquiry report could not be accepted and as to why punishment proposed cannot be imposed. This is exactly the stage when the delinquent get an opportunity to place his contention against acceptance of the enquiry report. In the decisions cited above what is held by the hon'ble Supreme court is that, whereever an enquiry officer had furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusions of the enquiry, holding that the delinquent is guilty of the charges, along with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to get a copy of such report and will also make a representation against it if he so desires. Non furnishing of the report amounts to violation of natural justice and make the final order challenged. But nowhere in the decision it is mentioned that copy of the report of enquiry should be furnished at an early stage before issuing show cause notice proposing the penalty. For the reasons mentioned as above, such a contention cannot be accepted.
5. Under the above mentioned circumstances this court do not find any merit to interfere with the conclusions arrived by the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed both by the appellate authority and the revisional authority.
6. Hence the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/