Disciplinary authority must record tentative reasons before recording findings contrary to the inquiry officer.

The applicant, an employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, was served with a charge-sheet on 14 June 2010. Following the disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the charge was not proved.

The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with that conclusion and issued a disagreement note dated 28 February 2012. Thereafter, by order dated 25 June 2012, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding one increment for one year with cumulative effect. The appellate authority partly modified the penalty to withholding one increment for one year without cumulative effect by order dated 21 October 2015. The applicant’s review petition was dismissed on 9 January 2017.

The applicant challenged the disciplinary, appellate, and review orders, contending principally that the disagreement note recorded a concluded finding of guilt rather than tentative reasons for disagreement and thereby violated natural justice.

The respondents maintained that the disagreement note contained sufficient tentative reasons and that the punishment order was legally valid.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority violated the principles of natural justice by recording a final finding that the charge was proved in its disagreement note, instead of recording only tentative reasons for disagreement and considering the applicant’s representation before arriving at a finding.

Whether the disciplinary, appellate, and review orders were liable to be quashed on that ground.

The Tribunal applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, that where the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with an Inquiry Officer’s finding favourable to the charged employee, it must first record tentative reasons for disagreement, communicate them to the employee, and provide an opportunity to submit a representation before recording its own final findings on the charge.

This requirement flows from the principles of natural justice and applies before the authority records its final conclusion and imposes a penalty.

The Inquiry Officer had found the charge not proved, requiring the Disciplinary Authority to communicate only tentative reasons for disagreement and to defer its final conclusion until after considering the applicant’s representation.

However, the disagreement note stated that the applicant had failed to produce documentary proof, alleged that forged entries had been made, and concluded in express terms: “As the allegation alleged is proved.”

The Tribunal found that the note did not describe the disagreement or finding as tentative or provisional and therefore demonstrated that the Disciplinary Authority had reached a concluded finding before receiving and considering the applicant’s representation.

This procedure was inconsistent with the rule in Kunj Bihari Mishra and constituted a violation of natural justice, vitiating the subsequent punishment, appellate, and review orders.

The respondents were granted liberty to recommence the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of consideration of the Inquiry Officer’s report, with the exercise to be completed within six months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.