The Supreme Court has recently noted that it is not required by the Disciplinary Authority to have detailed reasons in an order imposing punishment which accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and MR Shah observed that just a mere notice indicated the proposed punishment does not mean that the disciplinary authority has taken a decision. The case that was being argued was that of a manager of Lakhimi Gaolia Bank who is said to have sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the procedure made by law. So, the perpetrator was given the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’, which was upheld also in the Gauhati High Court.
The argument that was raised in the Supreme Court was that the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons in the order dated 29.08.2005 while punishing compulsory retirement and that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without recording the reasons. Viewing the details, the Court stated if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment was imposed based on the findings recorded in the inquiry report and so no further reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. The bench also rejected the issue that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges.
