Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunj Bihari Misra (supra) laid down as under:
“19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.”
31. It may be noticed here that after the law was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunj Bihari Misra (supra) specific provision in this regard has been inserted in the Rules of 1958 as Rule 16(10A) in the year 2003, as reproduced hereinbefore.
32. In the present case as admittedly the copy of the resolution of the Full Court was not made available to the petitioner, the same apparently was in violation of the resolution itself as well as express provisions of Rule 16(10A) of the Rules, 1958 and results in causing prejudice to the petitioner, who being unaware of the opinion of the Full Court did not make any representation qua the said opinion of the Full Court.
33. The rest of the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner pertaining to the findings of the Inquiry Judge, on account of the fact that the Full Court apparently formed the opinion that the petitioner acted with corrupt motive also, go into oblivion at this stage.
34. In view of the fact that the opinion of the Full Court was not communicated to the petitioner and petitioner could not make any representation qua the said opinion, further the Full Court rejected the representation and the State acting on the opinion of the Full Court has ordered for dismissal of the petitioner, the order of dismissal stands vitiated.
In the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur
(Before Sangeet Lodha and Arun Bhansali, JJ.)
Ghanshyam Giri v. Rajasthan High Court through the Registrar General,
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 637/2012
Decided on September 20, 2017
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2559
