Where the punishing authority takes a view that is at variance with the view of the enquiry officer, it must not only serve notice on the concerned employee calling him upon to reply to the charges against him but prior to that, spell out the reasons for taking such a different view of the matter.

In Hari Shanker Srivastav v Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, the Allahabad High Court vide a recent order (February 6, 2012) directed the Respondent to spell out why it chose to ignore the report of the enquiry officer exonerating completely the petitioner from any charge of misdemeanor, then ask him to file his reply to the charges and then revise the order of punishment if warranted in the light of the fresh reply made by the petitioner to the fresh show cause notice embellished by reasons impelling the authority to take a different view from the one taken by the enquiry officer. The petitioner was reverted to the minimum pay scale and his service record besmirched with an adverse entry. And in the meanwhile he has retired. His claim for payment of back wages was not decided by the High Court on the ground that the issue would be decided by the Respondent if and when he came to a different conclusion warranting restoration of both honour and the salary lost on a fresh trial.

Related Topics