Disciplinary authority must record reasons for disagreement and its own findings under Rule 15(2).

The petitioner, posted as a Driver under the Directorate of Culture and Archaeology since 2018, was subjected to a departmental enquiry for allegedly remaining absent from duty from 22 December 2018 to 20 September 2019.

The Inquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, found the charges not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the enquiry report and, by order dated 19 March 2021, treated the period of absence under the principle of “no work, no pay,” without properly recording reasons for disagreement or recording its own findings on the charges. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the disciplinary authority could disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer without recording reasons for such disagreement as required under Rule 15(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966?

Whether the disciplinary authority was required to record its own findings on each charge before imposing the consequence of “no work, no pay”?

The Court primarily applied Rule 15(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which mandates that where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Inquiry Officer’s findings on any charge, it must record reasons for the disagreement and its own finding on that charge, provided the evidence on record is sufficient. Rule 15(3) further requires the disciplinary authority to record reasons in writing while imposing a penalty.

The Court held that mere disagreement with the enquiry report is insufficient; the disciplinary authority must disclose the basis of disagreement and independently determine the findings on the charges.

The Inquiry Officer had found all allegations against the petitioner unproved. Although the disciplinary authority possessed the enquiry report and the underlying evidence, it neither identified the evidentiary basis for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer nor recorded its own findings on the individual charges.

Instead, it simultaneously recorded disagreement and applied “no work, no pay” for the period of absence. This failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 15(2), and the absence of recorded reasons also rendered the consequential order legally unsustainable.

The impugned order was quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and consequential reliefs were directed to follow.