TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him in his show cause notice which, it will bear repetition to state, was only tentative in nature. As the Appellate Authority in arriving at his finding, laid emphasis on the fact that the Appellant has not filed any objection to the show cause notice; ordinarily, this Court would not have exercised its power of judicial review in such a matter, but the case in hands appears to be an exceptional one as the Appellant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. He filed a show cause but, albeit after some time the said cause was available with the Disciplinary Authority before he issued the order of dismissal. Even if he had prepared the order of dismissal, he could have considered the show cause as it did not leave his office by then. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice will be sub- served if the Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the show cause filed by the Appellant herein before him. It will be desirable that an opportunity of personal hearing is also given to the appellant herein. We make it clear that although we are setting aside the order of Disciplinary Authority and consequently all other orders, we direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant as much as he invested ₹ 60,000/- in the purchase of FDRs in his own name as well as in the name of his mother Smt. Leelawanti in Punjab and Sind Bank, Vijayawada in 1981 without any intimation to his department/ Government as required under Rule 18 (3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 2. A closure report was submitted by the CBI on 20th July, 2001. In the departmental proceeding, the Appellant adduced evidences on his behalf as also cross-examined witnesses examined on behalf of the Department. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 26.9.1996 exonerating him from the said charges. The Disciplinary Authority, however, differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a memorandum on or about 17.2.1997 stating the reasons for his difference with the Enquiry Officer and called upon the Appellant to make his representation in his defence to the grounds of disagreement before a final decision is taken stating: Any representation which he may wish to make against the tentative opinion will be considered by the undersigned independent of her tentative opinion. Such a representation, if any, sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AC, RCR, Music System, CTV VCR as items having been fifteen/ leaned to Smt. Leelawanti by her relatives have already been given in memo dt. 17.02.97. As per my findings in this regard contained in the above said memo these items infact belonged to the charged officer and shall be treated as his assets. The money spent on the construction of house no. EA-68 Inderpuri has also been logically discussed in above referred memo. In the absence of any objection from charged offer this is also held to correct calculation. Thus, as per discussion in the memo dt. 17.02.97 an assets amounting to ₹ 1,15,873.62 owned by Sh. Ranjit Singh are held to be disproportionate to his known sources of income and therefore charge I is held to be proved against the charged officer. 7. The Appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority being the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi against the said order. The following points were framed by the said authority for consideration: (i) Whether by not giving Sh. Ranjit Singh extension of time, which had twice over expired, prejudice has been caused to him, in other words, whether it amounts to denial of principles of natural justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the Appellant has raised two contentions in support of the appeal. The learned counsel would firstly submit that keeping in view of the fact that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi valued the residential house of the Appellant at ₹ 2,41,576/- whereas the Executive Engineer appointed by the CBI valued the same at ₹ 3,26,000/- and, thus, the difference between the two valuations being only ₹ 84,426/-, it cannot be said that the assets possessed by the Appellant were disproportionate to his known source of income. 12. It was further submitted that the Appellate Authority could have granted some time to the Appellant to file his show cause having regard to the fact that although he is said to have prepared his order on 8.4.1997, it was not dispatched from his office till then and in that view of the matter, it must be held that the principles of natural justice have been violated. 13. Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Executive Engineer of the CBI was examined before the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of proving his report on valuation of the residential building of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer. 17. The said decision has been followed by this Court in State Bank of India and Others v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty [(2003) 2 SCC 447], wherein it was clearly held that in such an event the prejudice doctrine would not be applicable stating: 6 . In para 19 of the judgment in Punjab National Bank case extracted above, when it is clearly sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He should not have relied only on the reasons disclosed by him in his show cause notice which, it will bear repetition to state, was only tentative in nature. As the Appellate Authority in arriving at his finding, laid emphasis on the fact that the Appellant has not filed any objection to the show cause notice; ordinarily, this Court would not have exercised its power of judicial review in such a matter, but the case in hands appears to be an exceptional one as the Appellant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. He filed a show cause but, albeit after some time the said cause was available with the Disciplinary Authority before he issued the order of dismissal. Even if he had prepared the order of dismissal, he could have considered the show cause as it did not leave his office by then. The expression communication in respect of an order of dismissal or removal from service would mean that the same is served upon the delinquent officer. [See State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 SC 1313] 19. Even otherwise also the jurisdiction of a Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter would remain with him till it goes out of his hands which would mean the order is dispatched, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
