SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE meaningful question that crops up in this writ petition is whether the Disciplinary Authority, who disagrees with the report of enquiry officer exonerating the delinquent of the charges levelled against him, should afford further opportunity of hearing to the delinquent before proceeding to award punishment?
(2.) THE petitioner while working as Senior Demonstrator in Anatomy at S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur was selected for deputation to Iran. THE petitioner was to join the duties at Iran on July 20, 1975 therefore on his request he was relieved in the afternoon of July 18, 1975. THEreafter the petitioner left for Iran and came back to India in October 1985 and reported in the Medical Department on October 15, 1985. THE petitioner was kept A. P. O. (Awaiting Posting Orders) and by an order dated July 14, 1986 the petitioner was given posting as Senior Demonstrator in Anatomy in S. P. Medical College Bikaner. THE Principal and Controller S. M. S. Medical College Jaipur under his covering letter dated Sept. 3, 1985 sent a memo proposing an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the CCA Rules ). THE charge against the petitioner was that he had been wilfully absent from S. M. S. College Jaipur since July 19, 1975. An enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on December 31, 1986 exonerating the petitioner from the charge levelled against him. But the Disciplinary Authority (THE State of Rajasthan) did not agree with the report of Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment on the petitioner dismissing him from the service vide order dated May 16, 1989. Against this order of punishment the action for filing the instant writ petition has been resorted to by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully perused the material on record. As is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. M. C. Saxena (1) the Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and act upon his own conclusion. The only requirement is that the Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for his disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana (2) their Lordships of the Supreme Court again propounded thus (para 10) ``the law is well settled. The disciplinary authority on receiving the report of the enquiry officer may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the latter. In case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and then to record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry and report. '' In the matter before me the Disciplinary Authority has undoubtedly recorded reasons for his disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiring Officer but order of punishment is not based on such reasons. A close scrutiny of the impugned order of punishment dated May 16, 1989 reveals that the State Government referred the case of the petitioner to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on September 23, 1988. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide its letter dated December 3, 1988 advised the State Government to punish the petitioner by dismissing him from the service. Thus the impugned order of punishment was passed on the basis of opinion given by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. It will not be out of place to incorporate the operative part of the impugned order of punishment which reads thus- ***
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner was not provided by the Disciplinary Authority with a copy of the aforequoted letters dated September 23, 1988 and December 3, 1988. Opinion of Rajasthan Public Service Commission was not the part of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority could pass order of punishment after recording reasons for his disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but no such order could be passed placing reliance on such material which was not supplied to the petitioner. This can be considered as a negation of the principles of natural justice. Before the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to award punishment on the basis of opinion given by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission the petitioner should have been afforded opportunity of hearing in respect of such opinion. In view of the fact that order of punishment is solely based on the opinion of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, I do not consider it necessary to deal with the other submissions of the learned counsel. The impugned order of punishment which is violative of principles of natural justice, deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, I partly allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of punishment dated May 16, 1989. The matter is remitted back to the respondent Disciplinary Authority to supply the aforequoted documents dated September 23, 1988 and December 3, 1988 and to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of the said documents and thereafter to pass fresh order. The Disciplinary Authority is expected to undertake the aforesaid exercise as expeditiously as possible. Costs easy. . ;