- (1.) The service rules applicable to the petitioner, to be more precise Rule 9 (2) of the Service Rules, says that if the disciplinary authority decides to take a view different from the enquiry officer and by taking such different view, decides to hold the delinquent employee guilty as against the exoneration by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority is required to record reasons for the different view which it proposes to take and is also required to communicate such reasons to the delinquent employee to enable such employee to make a representation or defence against the said proposal.
(2.) In the present case, the disciplinary authority's order dated 24.9.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) refers to the notice dated 8.3.2001, issued by the disciplinary authority and also says that by that notice dated 8.3.2001 the reasons for taking a different view were communicated to the petitioner. A copy of the notice dated 8.3.2001 has been enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure'6'. After examining the notice we find that the notice only mentions the 'conclusion' that for excess expenditure the petitioner is guilty. No reasons in support of this 'conclusion, much less any reason for taking a view different from the enquiry officer, have been mentioned in the notice. The enquiry officer, in his report dated 21.10.2000, enclosed as Annexure'5' to the writ petition, has said that it would not be appropriate to hold the petitioner guilty for the excess expenditure which was incurred in unavoidable circumstances.
(3.) Thus, the notice dated 8.3.2001, in absence of the reasons, does not fulfil the requirement of Rule 9 (2) of the Service Rules and, accordingly, the punishment order dated 24.9.2001 is vitiated due to non-compliance of the procedure and the rules.;