TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -269
Proper application of mind essential
1053. While considering the report of inquiry, it is essential for the disciplinary authority to apply its mind and to arrive at independent conclusion regarding the guilt or innocence of the charged employee (Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364]. For this purpose though he has to take note of the findings of the inquiry officer (V.K. Javali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387], he is not bound by the assessment and conclusion of the inquiry officer (A.N. D'Silva v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1130; H.C. Goel case, supra]. The failure of the disciplinary authority to apply its mind to the report of inquiry shall vitiate the proceedings. For instance, in the circumstances mentioned below it was held that the inquiry stood vitiated because of lack of proper application of mind :
(1) where the disciplinary authority took the report of inquiry for granted [K. Meeran v. State, AIR 1960 Ker. 284), or acted on it mechanically [Jageram v. State, AIR 1955 Nagpur 160);
(11) where it imposed the penalty suggested by the inquiry officer without itself deciding the question of guilt and innocence (A.N.D'Silva case, supra).
1054. It is, no doubt, true that by deputing a responsible and competent officer to inquire and report in a disciplinary case, the disciplinary authority cannot be said to have delegated its functions [Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice, AIR 1955 SC 285], the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of the power remains on him (ibid] and he must address itself to the evidence before it and most conscientiously reach a conclusion which it deems such evidence to justify [Raghva Menon v. I.G. of Police, AIR 1961 Ker. 299).
Thus, irrespective of findings of inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority must find out for itself that there exists sufficient evidence linking the charged officer with the alleged misconduct
1055. Where inquiry officer had held the charged officer guilty "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced during the inquiry', the Supreme Court found that in fact, there was no evidence to link the appellant with the alleged misconduct and hence it was a case of no evidence (Sher Bahadur v. Union of India, C.A. No. 5055 of 2002 decided on 16.8.2002).
Post a Comment