AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
Through this Original Application, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
“1.To quash the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 passed by Disciplinary Authority, 06.07.2015 passed by Appellate Authority and order dated 29.07.2016 passed by Revisioning Authority contained as Annexure No. A -1, A-2 & A-3 to this OA, with all consequential benefits.
2.To restore the pay of the applicant and release the difference / arrears of pay alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.
3.To revise the pensionary benefits on account of aforesaid relief and release the difference thereof alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.
4.Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
5.Cost of the present case.”
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that neither Disciplinary Authority nor Appellate Authority nor the Revising Authority considered the points raised by the applicant in his defence. The impugned punishment order is non-speaking one, hence, deserves to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority (Annexure No. A-1) is liable to be set aside being in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman LIC of India & Ors. Vs. A Masilamani reported in AIRONLINE 2012 SC 426 and judgment passed by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench in the matter Lalit Kumar Jain vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Other reported in 2024 (42) LCD 959.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that impugned order is legally justifiable. The points raised by applicant have been duly considered in the impugned punishment order as well as appellate and revising order. O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
In the matter of Chairman LIC of India & Ors. Vs. A Masilamani reported in AIRONLINE 2012 SC 426, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the word „consider‟ is of great significance. Hence, there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term „consider‟ postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind.
The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman LIC of India & Ors. Vs. A Masilamani (supra) is quoted herein below:
“11.The word “consider”, is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that, there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide: Director, Marketing, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147; and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1771).”
In the matter Lalit Kumar Jain vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Other reported in 2024 (42) LCD 959, the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench while dismissing the writ referred the judgments passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Mehrotra as well as Oryx Fisheries Private Limited wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that the when a representation / reply has been submitted with regard to charges levelled against employee, disciplinary authority is required to to consider the grounds which have been taken by the delinquent employee in his reply prior to passing of punishment order.
The relevant portion of the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench in the matter Lalit Kumar Jain vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Other reported in 2024 (42) LCD 959 is quoted herein below:
“6.Perusal of the judgments passed in the case of Raj Kumar Mehrotra (supra) as well as Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra) would indicate that the Apex Court has categorically held that when a representation/reply has been submitted against the inquiry report then the disciplinary authority is required to consider the grounds which have been taken by the delinquent employee in his reply prior to passing of the order.
7.When the facts of the instant case are seen in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments it clearly emerges that though the disciplinary authority has referred to the representation dated 30.12.2022 which has been submitted by the petitioner against the inquiry report yet the same has been found to be devoid of merit without indicating the reasons thereof.
8.Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion more particularly when no reasons have been accorded by the disciplinary authority while finding the representation submitted by the petitioner devoid of merit, the order impugned dated 27.03.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside.”
In the light of the aforecited law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as well as Hon‟ble High Court Allahabad at Lucknow Bench, the case of the applicant is being analyzed and evaluated.
In the punishment order, the following observations have been made by the Disciplinary Authority:-
“यद्यपि श्री श्रीवास्तव ने डीएआर इन्क्वायरी के दौरान, बचाव प्रतिवेदन एवं डीएआर इन्क्वायरी रिपोर्ट के विरुद्ध प्रेषित अभ्यावेदन में आरोपों को अस्वीकार करते हुए आरोपमुक्त करने का आग्रह किया है और साक्ष्य स्वरूप संबंधित कागजातों की छायाप्रति भी उपलब्ध करायी है, लेकिन वास्तविकता यह है कि सतर्कता जाँच के दौरान लिनन स्टॉक में कमी पायी गयी और इसका मुख्य कारण समय से स्टॉक वेरीफिकेशन न कराया जाना रहा जिसकी पुष्टि विश्वसनीय प्रलेखों के आधार पर हुई है। ऐसी स्थिति में श्री प्रमोद कुमार श्रीवास्तव के द्वारा अपने पक्ष में दिये गये विभिन्न तर्कों को मानकर निर्दोष ठहराया जाना प्रशासनिक दृष्टिकोण से कतई उचित नहीं होगा।”
From the perusal of the aforesaid extract, it is manifest that defence representation has been rejected without considering the documents adduced by the applicant in his defence.
The defence representation has been filed as Annexure No. A-9 (pages from 555 to 597 of the paper-book).
Disciplinary Authority should have considered the points raised by the applicant. The impugned punishment order (Annexure No. A-1) is non-speaking order and appellate order as well as revising order (Annexure No. A-2 and Annexure No. A-3) are also cryptic in nature, thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of A. Masilamani (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Lalit Kumar Jain (supra), the impugned punishment orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed.
In view of the above, the impugned punishment order dated 01.03.2013 (Annexure No. A-1), Appellate order dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure No. A-2) and Revising order dated 29.07.2016 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after considering the representation of the applicant against inquiry report. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No order as costs.
Associated MAs also stand disposed of accordingly.