Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an ex-Constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), challenged the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Mumbai CSMT, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on four charges. The inquiry officer, by report dated 20.02.2021, found that charges 1 and 2 were not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with this finding but did not provide a copy of the disagreement report to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. The petitioner contended that this violated principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The court, relying on the Delhi High Court judgment in Const. Seth Pal Singh v. Garg and Union of India (2010 SCC Online Del 3895), held that when the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry officer's findings, it must record reasons and provide the disagreement report to the delinquent employee to enable him to make a representation. The failure to do so vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to provide a copy of the disagreement report to the petitioner within four weeks, after which the disciplinary authority may pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Disagreement Report - Principles of Natural Justice - Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India - The disciplinary authority disagreed with the inquiry officer's findings that charges 1 and 2 were not proved, but failed to provide a copy of the disagreement report to the petitioner before imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. The court held that such non-furnishing violates principles of natural justice and Article 311(2), as the employee is entitled to know the reasons for disagreement and to make representation. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary authority's failure to furnish the report of disagreement with the inquiry officer's findings to the delinquent employee before imposing penalty violates principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 22.11.2021 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to provide a copy of the disagreement report to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order. After furnishing the report, the disciplinary authority may pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
- Disciplinary authority's duty to furnish disagreement report
- Right to hearing before penalty
