Amitabh Thakur vs Union Of India & Anr.

BY HON'BLE MR. A MUKHOPADHAYA, MEMBER (A) At the outset, the applicant, who has appeared in person, submitted that the respondents have stigmatize him vide their order dated 20th March 2021, (Annexure A-1), in that, while he was not at fault in any way, nevertheless he has been issued a "warning". On a question from the court, the applicant clarified that in his view, although a warning is not specifically denoted as a penalty that can be awarded in disciplinary proceedings, nevertheless, the fact that a copy of the same has been kept in his personal file indicates that it is meant to be in the nature of the penalty.

At this, both learned counsels for the respondent Shri M. C. Yadav, and Shri S. S. Rajawat, argued that it is amply clear in this case since, the warning issued to the applicant does not fall within the definition of penalties specified in the relevant disciplinary rules, there is no cause of action in this particular case and the same should be dismissed forthwith. Both leaned counsels also pointed out that a plain reading of the impugned order in question clearly and unambiguously shows that the departmental proceedings against the applicant had been ended/dropped and thus, it is amply clear that the applicant had not been punished or stigmatised in any way, therefore, no cause of action arose.

Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of the applicant as well as both learned counsels for the respondents. It has not been disputed in this case that the disciplinary rules do not specifically list "warning" as a penalty. It is also clear from the plain reading of the impugned order dated 20.3.2021(Annexure A-1) that departmental proceedings in this case having been ended/dropped specifically.

Given this position, it is found that the applicant has no legally valid cause of action in this particular case and the OA is therefore, misconceived and without merit.

Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.