TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -268
Cases where the disciplinary authority holds charged employee as not guilty
1049. 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
1050. 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
1051. The other situation can be that the inquiry officer has held him not guilty but the disciplinary authority intends to disagree with the report of inquiry and tentatively holds that the charges are proved. In such situation, the law requires that the charged employee must be given a show cause notice of disagreement and an opportunity to represent that the disagreement is not called for [Narayan Misra v. State of Orissa, 1969 SLR (SC) 657; Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, AIR 1998 SC 2721]. Specific reasons for disagreement must be mentioned in the show cause notice [Ram Kishen v. Union of India, (1995)7 JT (SC) 43].
1052. If no reply to the show cause is received, it does not mean that those points stand proved, the disciplinary authority must go by the evidence on record and reach objective conclusion. The reason is that the show cause notice was a tentative one. Therefore, – "Only because the Appellant did not file a show cause, the same would not mean that he was not required to consider the materials brought on records by the parties before the Disciplinary Authority, afresh. He was obliged to do so." – the Supreme Court observed (Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, C.A. No. 346 of 2005 d. 5.4.2006)
Post a Comment