M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the appellants -Central Coalfields Limited is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6867 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority terminating the services of the respondent and the order by which the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The respondent, a security -guard in the appellants -Company, was proceeded departmentally for the charges that while he was on duty in the official residence of the Project Officer, a jeep bearing Registration No. BRY -2985 was stolen away from the respondent 's place of duty. The departmental proceeding was contested by the respondent and finally the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charge against the respondent was not fully proved. However, it was established in the enquiry that the key of the vehicle was kept with the respondent and he was the custodian of the key of the vehicle. The disciplinary authority after considering the second show -cause reply filed by the respondent, passed order of termination of his services. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that when the disciplinary authority differed with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer that the charges were not proved, he was duty -bound to assign and inform the reasons of his disagreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. For better appreciation, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment are quoted herein below: 6. Apparently, the evidence as recorded in course of inquiry, does not confirm that the place from where the vehicle was allegedly stolen, was within the place of the petitioner 's duty. The charge, therefore, does not accuse the petitioner that theft of the vehicle had occurred on account negligence of duty on the part of the petitioner. It is under such circumstances, that the Inquiry Officer had found that charge against the petitioner was partly proved and not fully proved. In fact, from the details of the inquiry report, it is apparent that neither has the petitioner been accused of negligence in performance of his duty, nor has any charge been framed against him for negligence. Yet, the Disciplinary Authority has construed the findings in the inquiry report, that charge against the petitioner was "fully proved". By holding such view that charge against the petitioner has been fully proved in the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has apparently differed from the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It is by now well settled that if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to assign and inform the proceed the reasons on which it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, as passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it is apparent that the impugned order of termination of the petitioner 's services, is a non -speaking order, without assigning any reason as to why the punishment of termination of services was proposed against the petitioner, even though, the Departmental Inquiry did not confirm that the petitioner was found guilty of any act of negligence or dereliction of duty in respect of the work assigned to him. It is thus apparent that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its mind to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, as recorded in the inquiry Report. 7. Even though, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, would not act as a court of appeal, to make a reappraisal of the evidences recorded in the Disciplinary Proceedings, but this Court would not hesitate to interfere where it finds that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority awarding severe punishment of termination of services, is basically perverse and is against the principles of natural justice. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does find that the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority, are perverse and against the principles of natural justice and punishment of termination of service, as imposed against the petitioner, is highly disproportionate considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer that charge against the petitioner is partly proved.
(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of termination of services of the respondent.;