TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... major penalty was imposed on him, inter alia, on the charges; firstly, his service card bearing No. 303774 was fake; and secondly, that he secured employment on the basis of the fake service card. A departmental inquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer upon considering the materials placed on records in his report, stated:- This employee worked with the Works Inspector (Pul) Beena. His record was said to be at Beena with the IOW (East) but it came to be known from there that the record I.O.W. (M) was with the petitioner. Having gone there the matter was worked in to. There the full record of Works Inspector (Pul) Beena became available. I.O.W. (M) Vidisha gave it in writing that Shri Mathura Prasad S/o Babu Lal as per his service card No. 303774 worked under the Works Inspector (Pul) Beena as canal Khalasi w.e.f. 30.6.81 to 18.7.81 who is mentioned at S.No. 101 in the L.T.I. Register and at that time he was working under the Works Inspector (Pul) Beena K.L. Shridhaaran. NCMR Sheet was also seen. The name of the employee is mentioned in sheet No. 66253 of 18.7.81. The disciplinary authority was, however, not satisfied with the report. It was sent it back to the Inquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as enjoined with a duty to record reasons therefor and record its own findings on the said charge that the evidence was sufficient for the purpose as required under Rule 10(3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short the Rules). It was further held by the Tribunal that there was no finding with regard to endorsements of work rendered by Appellant between 1978 to 1986 contained in the service card of Appellant are inaccurate in particulars. Respondent herein preferred a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court thereagainst wherein, inter alia, it was contended that a finding of fact having been arrived at by the disciplinary authority that the service card was fake, the Tribunal could not have interfered therewith. It was further contended that only because the entries therein were in relation to the service by Respondent-Appellant, the same by itself was not a fresh ground for overturning the finding of the disciplinary authority. The High Court agreed with the said contentions and allowed the Writ Petition, inter alia, holding:- The Inquiry Officer surmised that as the entries in the service card was not issued by the PW-1, Ganj Basoda, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of work, place of work and the nature of work entered into therein were correct. He might not have been recorded that the service card was genuine or fake but substance of the allegation against Appellant was as to whether he had obtained an appointment by using a fake service card. The disciplinary authority merely sent a demi-official letter to the Inquiry Officer. He did not pass any order. The file was sent back to him for a clear remark on every point of charges framed against Appellant. It could not have been either an order passed in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 or sub-Rule (3) thereof. The disciplinary authority was a statutory authority. He was, therefore, bound to act within the four corners of the statute. Procedures relating to conduct of a disciplinary proceeding have been laid down by the Rules. He was bound to follow the same scrupulously. It is one thing to say that he wanted the Inquiry Officer to state the points to clear the said findings arrived at by him on each of the charges separately, but he did not have his jurisdiction to issue the direction under either of the sub-rules of Rule 10. Inquiry Officer held a further enquiry in furtherance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available on record, a direction for holding a further inquiry may be issued in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 so as to enable the department to lead further evidence before him. For the said purpose also, reasons are required to be recorded by the disciplinary authority. An opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer is required to be given. However, in the event, the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of materials placed by the parties are incorrect, he may disagree with the said findings but even, therefor, he is required to record reasons in support thereof. The requirement of sub-Rule (2) or sub-Rule (3) having not been complied with, the Inquiry Officer could not have arrived at a different finding. The High Court unfortunately did not consider this aspect of the matter. When an employee, by reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedures laid down under sub- Rules are required to be strictly followed. It is now well settled that a judicial review would lie even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
