SALIM SHAIKH v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Disciplinary Proceedings: Failure to Provide Disagreement Report Violates Natural Justice; Compulsory Retirement Set Aside.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:37268
Decision Date: 16-12-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 311(2); Principles of Natural Justice; Railway Protection Force Regulations
- Facts: Shri Salim Shaikh, an ex-Constable with the Railway Protection Force, faced a disciplinary inquiry with four charges. The inquiry officer found charges 1 and 2 not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with this finding but did not provide a copy of the disagreement report to Shaikh before imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement.
- Procedural Posture: Shaikh filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order of the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Mumbai CSMT, which upheld his compulsory retirement. He argued that the failure to provide the disagreement report violated principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Whether the disciplinary authority's failure to provide a copy of the disagreement report to the petitioner before imposing compulsory retirement violates principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, thereby warranting the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings.
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the failure to provide the disagreement report violated principles of natural justice. The court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities from the stage of disagreement.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing that when a disciplinary authority differs with the findings of the inquiry officer, it must serve a notice/show cause informing the charged employee of the grounds for disagreement. This obligation is based on principles of natural justice. The court noted that Regulation 154.4 mandates recording reasons for disagreement and own findings. Since the disagreement report was not provided, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to respond, violating natural justice. The court directed the disciplinary authority to supply the report and provide an opportunity to the petitioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
🔒 For Members Only