SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) Admitted facts which have culled out from the petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of driver on 11.04.1994. He was regularised on the said post on 18.07.1998, the charge sheet was issued to him on 14.06.2007 alleging that he had remained absent from duty for a certain period. Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry who submitted his report on 03.07.2007 holding that the charge does not stand proved and exonerated the petitioner. Copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner by the respondent vide their notice dated 19.12.2007 as well as on 31.12.2007, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner may submit his reply to the enquiry report. When a copy of the said notice was not received, a paper publication was also issued asking the petitioner to appear in person.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner had been exonerated of the charges by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to punish him vide Order dated 09.04.2008 and has removed him from service. He preferred an appeal against the said order pointing out that there is no disagreement notice given to him. However, the appeal was also rejected on 21.05.2008.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is now settled law that a person cannot be punished by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of an enquiry report for which he has been exonerated, unless the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and sends a disagreement note informing the delinquent for the reasons and basis on which he disagrees with the Enquiry Officer's report. In the present case, however no such disagreement notice was given by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, the punishment is vitiated in law.;