V RAMANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is said to have committed various irregularities. THErefore, 11 charges have been framed against the petitioner by the respondent department. THE petitioner was also called upon to submit his explanation and after giving his explanation, the respondent department having not satisfied with the written explanation submitted by the petitioner, ordered an enquiry. THE department appointed an enquiry officer. THE enquiry officer, after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides, submitted his report holding that except charge No. 1, the rest of the 10 charges were not proved. THE disciplinary authority, did not accept the findings of the enquiry officer and took a stand differing with the findings of the enquiry officer and came to the conclusion that out of 11 charges levelled against the petitioner, 7 charges were proved.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is settled position of law that if the disciplinary authority takes a view, differing with the findings of the enquiry officer, a notice has to be given to the delinquent employee. In the present case as the disciplinary authority had, without even giving any notice seeking the explanation of the delinquent, proceeded further, it is against the settled legal position and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on that ground.

(3.) THIS is the view of the Supreme Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashra reported in (1999)7 SCC 739, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:-