SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) THE instant tribunal application is preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated May 06, 2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a proceeding filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
(2.) BY the said judgment and order dated May 06, 2011, passed by the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal, on careful consideration of the facts and the evidence on record found serious infirmities both procedural and even otherwise in the matter of conducting the departmental proceeding initiated against the charge-sheeted employee and on consideration of fact quashed the charge sheet, report of the Enquiry Officer, orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The said disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the basis of a charge sheet dated 8th August, 2005, along with imputation of misconduct. The charges are of negligence in discharging his official duty recording of false statement during the enquiry conducted by one N.B. Hansda and entry of a "fake person " in Railway service. The charge sheeted employee was initially suspended on 22nd March, 2005 and ultimately removed from service by an order dated 8th May, 2007 on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer which was subsequently affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. Assailing the order of such authorities, the respondent employee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of dismissal. The said Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, inter alia, on the following ground: i) Article I, Article II and Article III including the imputation of misconduct are not specific, vague and not in accordance with Rule 9(6) of RS(D&A) Rules. The enquiry report dated 11th November, 2003 prepared by Sri B.N. Hansda SPO, was not the documents supplied to the delinquent employee and was not in the list of documents supplied to the said employee which is in contravention of Rule 9(6)(ii)(b) of RS(D&A) Rules. The Enquiry Officer relied upon Fact Finding Enquiry Report without supplying the said documents to the delinquent employee and it violates the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer allowed the marking on documents which were not in the list of exhibits and admitted such documents in the enquiry report without giving an opportunity to the delinquent who leads the evidence on such documents. The name of Sri Krishna Kanta Sarkar never appeared in the charges moreover the report on the basis of such articles of charges which were framed, such report was not admitted by Sri B.N. Hansda SPO, In fact, Sri Hansda did not admit the Fact Finding Enquiry Report. Sri D.K. Mukherjee who happens to be the author of the report did not admit finger print expert opinion report. Moreover, the respondents had fairly admitted before the Central Administrative Tribunal that the Fact Finding Enquiry Report and the finger print expert opinion were not admitted and marked by the respective witness. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not apply their mind at all to the objections raised by the said employee against the finding of the Enquiry Officer and have dealt with such representation and appeal in a mechanical manner. No reason was assigned at all for not accepting the objection raised by the said employee, in fact, there was no consideration of the objections raised by the said employee against the report of the Enquiry Officer. We have considered the matter in detail and also the documents forming part of the said proceeding. We are of the considered opinion that the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in passing the said order. In fact, the Central Administrative Tribunal has aptly quoted the judgments of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (7) SCC 431 (Cyril Lasrado (Dead) By Lrs. And Others v. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Another) and also 2003 (11) SCC 519 (Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Binhar) where the requirement of reason to be assigned and has been emphasized. In fact, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are without reason which is the heart beat of every conclusion and without which such orders become lifeless. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India reported in 1986 (2) SCC 651 and Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagundum & Ors. v. Madhusudan Rao reported in 2008(3) SCC 469. In the Judgment reported in 2008 (3) SCC 469 the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in deciding a disciplinary action indicated the procedure that is required to be adopted by the Appellate Authority in deciding such representation. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are required to consider such representation which implies due application of mind. In the order of the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority, there was no indication as to whether the proper procedures as required under rules were followed or complied with in the enquiry and if not whether failure to follow such rule and procedure resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice or it has caused failure of justice. The Disciplinary Authority did not give any reason to concur with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and discard or reject the defence plea. The Appellate Authority did not address at all on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer or for that matter the mechanical affirmation of the order of the Disciplinary Authority could be supported on the basis of the evidence on record. In fact, the Appellate Authority summarily dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of removal without giving any reason for affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The law on this point is well-settled as enunciated by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Bhatt 's case (supra) which was subsequently followed in Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagundum & Ors. v. Madhusudan Rao reported in 2008 (3) SCC 469. In the later decision, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court after considering large number of decisions have held that the Appellate Authority is required to give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondent . There was a provision for revision under the relevant rules. The Revisional Authority is the highest authority in the Department of Forests in the State. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court noticed that unfortunately the Revisional Authority also merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer was examined by the Conservator of Forest (Appellate Authority) wherein the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved. The said authority too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court held that both the Appellate and Revisional Authority would not be required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but in the interest of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the Appellate or Revisional Authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. The said authority would be required to indicate some brief reasons even in an order affirming the view of the lower forum.
(3.) THE same is the case here. THE learned Tribunal had taken the pain of analyzing the Enquiry Report and the representations made by the employee before the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority. Both the authorities have proceeded with the matter without applying their mind and did not give any reason with regard to the various objections and points raised by the employee in such representation with regard to the finding of the Enquiry Officer. THE said authorities even failed to appreciate that the document on which reliance was placed by the Enquiry Officer was not even shown to the delinquent employee and was not forming part of the list of documents. The said report, in fact, was not even proved. The prosecution, in fact, has failed to prove the veracity of the Fact Finding Enquiry Report. In fact, the Enquiry Officer could not have relied upon such report without giving an opportunity to the charge sheeted employee to deal with the same. In fact, having regard to the evidence of Mr. B.N. Hansda and Sri D.K. Mukherjee, the prosecution witnesses, the Enquiry Officer could not have arrived at the finding of guilt in respect of such charges. The Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority have completely overlooked this aspect of the matter and it appears to us from a bare reading of such orders passed by the said authorities that such orders were passed mechanically and no reason has been assigned for accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and rejecting the plea of the delinquent employee. The Tribunal has found that apart from procedural lapses, the relevant rules were not followed. We are in agreement with such finding of the Tribunal. In a departmental proceeding, a charge sheeted employee, as a matter of right, can claim procedural fairness and such proceeding is expected to be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The authorities concerned are required to follow the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice since any finding of guilt, if it is major, may visit the employee with serious civil consequences including dismissal from service which, in our mind, is akin to a capital punishment in a criminal matter. Apart from stigma, it may also completely ruin the future of an employee and it is for this reason, more particularly when the Union of India is the employer, it is all the more necessary to ensure that the employee receives a fair trial and the relevant rules are strictly adhered to and no action is taken which is likely to prejudice the employee in the said proceeding. ;