TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -267
Cases where the disciplinary authority holds charged employee as not guilty
1041. The inquiry officer might have held that the charges are not proved and the disciplinary authority tends to agree with him. It can also be the situation that the report of inquiry holds him guilty but the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the charges cannot be held as proved. In the former case, the disciplinary authority may make an order of exoneration indicating his agreement with the inquiry officer. In the latter case, the disciplinary authority has to adduce its reasons for not agreeing with the inquiry officer and exonerating the charged employee.
Cases where the disciplinary authority holds the charged officer as guilty
1042. May be the inquiry officer has held him guilty and the disciplinary authority, even after due consideration of the submissions of the charged officer on report of inquiry finds him guilty too. Then the disciplinary authority may proceed to hold him guilty and impose punishment.
Where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the report of inquiry and holds the charged officer as guilty
1043. What shall be the effect thereof on order of punishment was considered by the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074, in paras 30 and 31 of the judgment. The Court observed - "When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the enquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimately punishment awarded to him.... Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case." And proceeded to hold that where even after furnishing of the report of inquiry, no different consequences would have followed, it was not necessary to reopen the case.
1044. The above position will obtain even in a case where the rules provided for furnishing of report of inquiry but it was not, somehow, so furnished. The reason is, as held in Karunakar case, requirement of furnishing a copy of report of inquiry is based on (a) as ingredient of concept of 'reasonable opportunity' as enshrined in Article 311(2), and (b) Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, a provision in rules cannot have an overriding effect (State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora, Civil Appeal No. 5241 of 1998 decided on 2.5.2001].
Post a Comment