58 Difference between inquiry officer and disciplinary authority

In State Bank of India v. S.S. Kosal 1994 AIR SCW 2901 the supreme court held that where the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on some of the charges. No such fresh opportunity is contemplated by the State Bank of India Regulations nor can such a requirement be deduced from the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer's Report is not binding upon the Disciplinary authority and it is open to the disciplinary authority to come to its own conclusion on the charges. It is not in the nature of an appeal from the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. It is one and the same proceeding. It is open to a Disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry himself. It is equally open to him to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and place the entire record before him with or without his findings. But in either case, the final decision is to be taken by him on the basis of the material adduced.

Above view was overruled by a larger bench of supreme court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra AIR 1998 SC 2713. in this case the supreme court while dealing with Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations (1977), Regn.7(2), observed :

“The disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, inquiry officer's report and the delinquent employee's reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions. It is necessary for the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the inquiry officer had given an adverse finding, the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the inquiry officer. It will, therefore, not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the inquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. Under Regn. 6 the inquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself.”

The supreme court held that when the inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the inquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an inquiry an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the inquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the inquiry officer they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the inquiry officer's report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In any such situation the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the Disciplinary Authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of inquiry. The principles of natural justice have, therefore, to be read into Regn. 7(2).

Thus, 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.