AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant is in the service of North Delhi Municipal Corporation. He was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) through direct recruitment in the year 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet dated 22.04.2014 (Annexure A-2). The applicant submitted his reply to the charge sheet. Identical charges were framed against two other officers also. A common enquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. It is stated that as against twelve charges framed against the applicant, ten were held proved and two, as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority proposed to differ with the finding of the Inquiry Officer on two charges, which were not held proved. Ultimately, after obtaining the opinion of the UPSC, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 07.12.2017 proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service, on the applicant. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant on the next day, i.e. 08.12.2017. This OA is filed challenging the show cause notice.
The principal ground urged by the applicant is that the erstwhile Commissioner of Municipal Corporation proposed to differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the two charges and even indicated a tentative punishment, and his successor has repeated the same exercise without application of mind. Other subsidiary grounds are also raised.
The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that though in the course of narration in the show cause notice, several facts were mentioned, the ultimate decision of proposing the punishment is that of the authority who signed the order and that no exception can be taken to the show cause notice. An objection is raised as regards the maintainability of the OA.
We heard Shri Rakesh Tikku, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R. V. Sinha, Shri Amit Sinha and Shri Vaibhav Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the entire record.
The subject matter of the OA is the show cause notice. At one stage of the hearing, it was sought to be contended that in view of the observations made in the order dated 07.12.2017 which constituted the basis for the show cause notice, the conclusion is foregone and show cause notice is just a formality. We find it difficult to accept this contention.
The very purpose of issuing a show cause notice, proposing punishment; is to enable the delinquent employee to raise the legal and factual grounds that are available to him. Whatever be the type of language that is employed by the Disciplinary Authority in coming to a tentative conclusion as to the nature of punishment to be imposed, an employee can be said to have suffered detriment, if only the explanation submitted by him is not considered and a punishment is imposed in contravention of law. The occasion to ventilate the grievance would arise if only the final order is passed as a sequel to the show cause notice.
A show cause notice can be set aside if only it is proved that the same was issued by an authority not conferred with the power. No such ground is raised at all. It is needless to mention that it shall be open to the applicant to urge the legal and factual grounds and respond to show cause notice.
We, therefore, dispose of this OA declining to interfere with the impugned show cause notice dated 08.12.2017, but leaving it open to the applicant to submit explanation, if not already submitted. In case an explanation is already submitted, it shall be open to the applicant to supplement the same with additional grounds or material within one week from today. The respondents shall take the explanation submitted or supplemented by the applicant before any final order is passed. It is needless to mention that the interim order dated 09.01.2018 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.