A disciplinary authority must consider the employee’s second-show-cause reply before passing its order.

The petitioner, a retired First Division Assistant in the Revenue Department, was subjected to departmental proceedings and penalised by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

The Tribunal later quashed the penalty and appellate orders and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, directing him to provide the enquiry report, issue a second show-cause notice, and pass appropriate orders after receiving the petitioner’s reply.

After the Deputy Commissioner passed a fresh order on 29 July 2019, the petitioner challenged it before the Tribunal, which dismissed his application on 24 April 2024.

The petitioner then sought judicial review of both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner complied with the Tribunal’s remand directions by considering the petitioner’s reply to the second show-cause notice before passing the fresh order.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application without examining whether the Deputy Commissioner had complied with those directions.

The Court applied the principle that an authority acting on remand must comply with the directions issued by the remitting forum, including considering the affected party’s reply before making its decision.

It also held that a reviewing tribunal must examine the relevant remand order and the authority’s compliance with it; dismissal without doing so may reflect non-application of mind.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, but the judgment cited no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its reasoning.

The Tribunal’s earlier order required the Deputy Commissioner to provide the enquiry report, issue a second show-cause notice, and then pass an appropriate order.

Although the petitioner replied to the notice, the Deputy Commissioner passed the fresh order without considering the reply’s contents, so the order did not comply with the remand directions.

The Tribunal, in turn, dismissed the subsequent application by extracting the punishment order without addressing the earlier remand directions or the alleged failure to consider the reply.

The High Court found that approach reflected non-application of mind.

It directed the Deputy Commissioner to pass a detailed order after considering the petitioner’s reply, in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions in Application No. 4643/2015, within two months of receiving the High Court’s order.

The Court made no observation on the merits and kept the petitioner’s contentions open.