Disciplinary authority must record tentative disagreement before seeking delinquent officer's representation.

Rajesh Kumar Singh, an Inspector, was subjected to departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, initiated by a charge sheet dated March 16, 2017.

An enquiry officer, in a report dated July 6, 2018, found Article I of the charge "not proved" and Article II "not proved" except for the charge that officials failed to inform their superiors in time.

The disciplinary authority remitted the case for further enquiry, and a supplementary report dated January 30, 2019, essentially maintained the initial findings.

The disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry findings and imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for two years via order dated May 22, 2019.

The appellate authority later reduced this punishment to a reduction of pay by one stage for one year via order dated February 19, 2020.

The applicant alleged prejudice due to the non-supply of two out of fourteen requested additional documents, specifically C. No. 238 dated March 15, 2017.

Whether the non-supply of a particular document (letter C. No. 238 dated March 15, 2017) caused prejudice to the applicant.

Whether the disciplinary authority erred by recording its disagreement with the enquiry report in definitive terms rather than tentative terms, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank vs Kunj Behari Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 84.

This precedent requires that whenever a disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and provide the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before recording its final findings.

The Court first addressed the non-supply of documents, finding that the applicant neither actively pressed for the production of letter C. No. 238 dated March 15, 2017, nor adequately explained its relevance to his defense.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the applicant failed to prove any prejudice caused by the withholding of this document, deeming the argument an afterthought.

However, the Court found the disciplinary authority’s disagreement note problematic.

The note expressed a definitive conclusion that "allegations... are crystal clear" and that the officers "failed to maintain devotion to duty and absolute integrity".

This definitive tenor, stating a conclusion rather than tentative reasons, contradicted the requirement laid down in Kunj Behari Mishra (supra).

The Supreme Court mandates that disagreement must be expressed in tentative terms, followed by an opportunity for the delinquent officer to provide a representation before final findings are recorded.

The disciplinary authority's failure to adhere to this principle of natural justice vitiated the proceedings from the stage of recording disagreement.

Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated from the stage of recording disagreement with the enquiry report.

The impugned orders dated May 22, 2019, and February 19, 2020, were quashed and set aside.

The respondents were permitted to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of consideration of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority.

The OA was disposed of on these terms.