AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
“8.1] Impugned Charge Memorandum bearing No. 1012/Complaint/04/E1 Con dated 19.03.2021dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure A) be set aside and quashed.
8.2] Impugned Penalty order bearing No. 1012/Discp/DNG/30/E1Con dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure A1) be set aside and quashed.
8.3] Impugned Speaking order bearing No. 1012/Discp/DNG/73/E1 Con dated 18.04.2023 (Annexure A2) be set aside and quashed.
8.4] The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to restore his pay reduced in terms of impugned penalty order dated 11.07.2022 with all consequential benefits including refund of arrear with interest @ 12% per annum.
8.5] Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case. 8.6] To pay the cost of the application.”
Applicant while working as Mate (Refrigerator Mechanic) under Garrison Engineer Silchar Division, was issued with a Memorandum of chargesheet dated 19.03.2021 under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 with the allegation of using MES vehicle and selling government diesel in Silchar civil area. No inquiry was conducted pursuant to the chargesheet dated 19.03.2021 although IO and PO were appointed under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the charges have not been proved.
According to applicant, the Disciplinary Authority relied upon the preliminary fact finding inquiry in the form of the opinion of the Court of Inquiry and the proceedings in respect thereof which is in gross violation of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala J Jhala V. State of Gujarat &Ors. (20143) 4 SSC 301. He was punished with a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale for a period of 3 years including denial of increment of pay of such reduction with having effect of postponing future increment vide order dated 11.07.2022, which is a major penalty wrongly stating the chargesheet to be under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965.
Applicant submitted appeal dated 24.08.2022 to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has to pass appellate order in terms of Rule 27 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. But in the instant case, the Appellate Authority did not pass any appellate order and rather directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass a speaking order pursuant to which the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 has been issued. So the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 is violative of Rule 27(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which is baseless and issued without any authority.
Heard the parties.
According to respondents, disciplinary proceedings was carried out as per procedure with ample chance to the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority passed has given reasoned and speaking order as per direction of the Appellate Authority.
During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant preferred representation/ appeal to the Appellate Authority on 11.05.2023 which is still pending before the competent authority since 2023 and he prays for a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide on the same.
So at this stage, we deem it fit to dispose of the O.A with a direction upon the competent authority to decide on the pending appeal dated 11.05.2023 within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the decision to the applicant forthwith. Ordered accordingly.
The O.A stands disposed of. No costs.
Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of.