Disciplinary authority must issue a reasoned disagreement notice before rejecting an exonerating enquiry report.

The petitioner challenged an order imposing the major penalty of reversion to the initial pay scale of Assistant Engineer following a departmental enquiry.

The charge-sheet alleged that, in connection with the execution of electrical works under the Saubhagya Scheme in District Sidhi, the petitioner had committed malpractices causing a loss of ₹6,31,59,351, and had caused a further loss of ₹2,35,71,643 through other alleged irregularities.

The Enquiry Officer found both charges un proved.

The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s findings and constituted a five-member committee to scrutinise the enquiry report and the alleged lapses.

The committee effectively acted as a fresh enquiry body; however, its report was not supplied to the petitioner, no notice of disagreement was issued, and the petitioner was not heard before the penalty was imposed.

The respondents opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative departmental remedy of appeal under Rule 9(2)(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 and Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority could disagree with the Enquiry Officer’s findings and impose a penalty without issuing a notice of disagreement containing the reasons for such disagreement?

Whether the constitution and acceptance of the report of a five-member committee, without supplying its report to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966?

Whether the existence of an alternative departmental appeal barred the exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case?

Although a Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer and may disagree with them, it must first issue a notice of disagreement setting out the prima facie issues or reasons for such disagreement and provide the delinquent employee an opportunity to respond, as held in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84.

The Court further relied on Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which governs the procedure for remand or further enquiry.

The Court also applied the exception to the alternative-remedy rule recognised in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, under which writ jurisdiction may be exercised where there is a blatant violation of natural justice.

The Court found that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner on both charges, but the Disciplinary Authority neither issued a reasoned notice of disagreement nor gave the petitioner an opportunity to contest the proposed departure from the enquiry findings.

Instead, the five-member committee functioned as an additional enquiry authority. Its report was not furnished to the petitioner, and no hearing was afforded before the penalty was imposed.

This procedure was inconsistent with the safeguards prescribed by Rule 15 and violated the principles of natural justice.

Because the punishment was founded upon a process in which the petitioner had not been heard and in which the favourable Enquiry Officer’s report was bypassed without procedural compliance, the Court held that the case fell within the recognised exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies.

The Disciplinary Authority was granted liberty either to issue a proper notice of disagreement on the Enquiry Officer’s report and pass a final order, or, where justified by a procedural violation, to remand the matter in accordance with Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 for a fresh enquiry.

Any fresh order was required to comply with the prescribed procedure.