Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Bipin Bihari vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... on 12 February, 2024
(RESERVED ON 08.02.2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
This the 12th day of February, 2024
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 588 OF 2020
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER(A)
Bipin Bihari, S/o Sri Pitambar Lal Yadav, R/o Village-
Bajahan, Post Chhibaiyan, District Prayagraj
......... Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Comptroller & Auditor General,
New Delhi.
2. Accountant General (A&E)-1 U.P. Allahabad/Appellate
Authority.
3. Deputy Accountant General (Administration), U.P.,
Allahabad/Disciplinary Authority.
4. Rama Kant Singh, Accounts Officer, Office of
Accountant General (A&E)-1 U.P. Allahabad/ Enquiry
Officer.
............ Respondents
By Advocate: Sri A.K. Sinha
ORDER
Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J By means of this OA, the applicant has assailed the order dated 21.4.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 by means of which the applicant has been removed from service. The applicant has also impugned the order dated 2.9.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the appeal of the applicant came to be rejected.
2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the applicant is that a complaint was made by one Shiv Ram to the Page 1 of 14 respondent no.2 on 19.3.2018 alleging therein that crime case no. 509 of 1995 under Sections 325, 504, 506 and 225 IPC is pending against the applicant in the Court of Learned ACJM, Court no.9, Allahabad and the applicant has been appearing in the said case without obtaining the proper permission from the competent authority. On receipt of said complaint, a memo was issued to the applicant on 3.4.2018 requiring him to furnish his explanation within five days. To this, the applicant submitted his explanation on 9.4.2018 wherein he has admitted that he had appeared in the aforesaid case. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 16.1.2019 stating therein that the aforesaid crime case was of the year 1995 and he entered in the department in the year 1997, but he did not disclose the pendency of the aforementioned crime case in the attestation form. In the said show cause notice, it was also observed that why disciplinary proceedings may not be initiated against him. The applicant submitted his reply on 28.1.2019 stating therein that the complainant is the cousin of the applicant and due to rivalry; the applicant was named in the complaint. He was not aware about the pendency of criminal case. Due to this reason, the fact disclosed in the attestation form cannot be taken against the applicant. There is mandatory instructions for indication of word 'warning' in the attestation form, but the same was not mentioned in it. Thus pleaded that disclosure made by the applicant in the attestation form cannot be taken as suppression of material fact.
2.1 It is alleged in the O.A. that without considering the reply of the applicant against show cause notice, he was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1) of the Rules w.e.f. 31.1.2019. Along-with the suspension order, a chargesheet dated 31.1.2019 was also served upon the applicant leveling two charges. The applicant submitted his reply denying the charges leveled against him with a request to provide Defence Assistant. The Page 2 of 14 documents so demanded by the applicant were not made available to him. However, the Enquiry officer concluded the inquiry on 27.5.2019 by directing the parties to submit their written submissions, to which the applicant submitted his written submission on 10.6.2019.
2.2 The Enquiry officer submitted its report before the respondent no.3 on 3.7.2019, who issued a show cause notice to the applicant vide letter dated 11.7.2019 by enclosing a copy of enquiry report requiring the applicant to submit his reply within a period of 15 days. According to the applicant, the letter dated 11.7.2019 the disciplinary authority was in agreement with the enquiry report dated 3.7.2019 and accordingly without exercising the powers conferred under Rule 15(1), directed the applicant to submit his reply by exercising the powers as vested under Rule 15(2) of the Rules.
2.3 According to the O.A., the Enquiry Officer exonerated the applicant from charge no.1 for violation of decision no.2 of Government of India mentioned below Rule 11 of the Rules by holding that such an act of the applicant does not fall within the meaning of misconduct. As regards charge no.2, the Enquiry Officer proved the said charge against the applicant for not disclosing of reason for leave by concluding that the conduct of the applicant is in violation of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The applicant submitted his reply on 22.7.2019 with reference to letter dated 11.7.2019 by agreeing with the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer regarding non-applicability of decision no.2 of Government of India mentioned below Rule 11, by disagreeing with the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer with regard to charge no.2.
2.4 It is pleaded in the O.A. that instead of recording its finding regarding applicability of Rule 3 & 4 of Rule 15, the respondent no.3 vide order dated 8.11.2019 directed the Page 3 of 14 respondent no.4 for further enquiry in the matter on the basis of material obtained from the District & Session Judge, Allahabad. After exercising the powers conferred under sub-rule 2-A of the Rule 15, the disciplinary authority formed an opinion for imposition of penalty either under sub-rule 3 or sub-rule 4 of Rule 15. As such, by order dated 11.7.2019 the disciplinary authority directed the applicant for submitting representation against the findings of enquiry report, which was submitted by the applicant. Without considering the reply of the applicant, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 8.11.2019 directed for further enquiry. It is averred in the O.A. that re-enquiry order dated 8.11.2019 was passed by the respondent no.3 after four months from the date of submission of reply of enquiry report dated 3.7.2019.
2.5 In compliance of the order dated 8.11.2019, the respondent no.4 informed the applicant through letter dated 11.11.2019 requiring him to be present on 2.12.2019. The applicant appeared on the date fixed and also filed his written submission. In the meanwhile, the applicant filed an objection on 28.11.2019 requesting therein to set-aside the order dated 8.11.2019. The Enquiry Officer, without caring the objection filed by the applicant, submitted second enquiry report on 9.1.2020 to the respondent no.3 (disciplinary authority) and on receipt of the same, the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 10.1.2020 directed the applicant to submit his objection, if any, within 15 days. The applicant submitted his reply on 24.1.2020. The respondent no.3, however, without considering the reply of the applicant, vide order dated 21.4.2020 has passed an order by means of which the applicant was removed from service.
2.6 Being aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal before the appellate authority (respondent no.2), which came to be dismissed vide order dated 2.9.2020. Hence, this O.A. Page 4 of 14
3. Per contra, the respondents have resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit wherein they have stated that a criminal case bearing case no. 509 of 1995 under Sections 325, 323, 324, 504 and 506 is pending against the applicant in the Court of ACJM, Allahabad against the applicant. The applicant has been regularly attending the court hearing on the working day, but he did not inform the office about his presence in the Court. They have also stated that the said case is pending prior to joining of the applicant with the respondents and as such he has concealed the material fact for not disclosing the criminal case pending against him.
3.1 The respondents have also stated that a show cause notice dated 16.1.2019 was issued to the applicant to which the applicant submitted his reply on 28.1.2019 and after considering the reply, a chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued on 31.1.2019 requiring him to submit his reply. By another order of the same date i.e. 31.1.2019, the applicant was placed under suspension. According to the respondents, the applicant submitted his written statement of defence on 25.2.2019 with a request for personal hearing before the Deputy Accountant General (Admn.), which was acceded vide letter dated 7.3.2019. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer were appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the applicant in the chargesheet. On completion of enquiry, the Enquiry officer submitted its report to the disciplinary authority on 3.7.2019 and thereafter the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 11.7.2019 issued a show cause notice enclosing therewith a copy of enquiry report. The applicant submitted his reply on 22.7.2019. However, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 8.11.2019 further directed the Enquiry officer to inquire into the charges on the basis of documents as obtained from District & Session Judge, Allahabad. In compliance thereof, the Enquiry Page 5 of 14 Officer further conducted the enquiry and submitted its report to the disciplinary authority on 9.1.2020. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 10.1.2020 sent a copy of the same to the applicant requiring him to submit his reply, which the applicant has submitted on 24.1.2020. On going through the reply of the applicant as well as gravity of the charges leveled against him, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 21.4.2020 by means of which the applicant has been removed from service. Against the punishment order, the applicant has submitted an appeal before the respondent no.2, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 2.9.2020. Lastly, they have stated that the orders, impugned in the Application, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, hence no interference is called for and as such O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has filed his Rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents by negating the contentions as made in the Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments as already advanced in the OA.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that mandatory direction issued by the competent authority for mentioning the word 'warning' in the attestation form have not been included in it. Thus, information given by the applicant in the attestation form cannot be taken as suppression of material fact. It is also argued that on submission of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority simply issued a show cause notice supplying a copy of enquiry report to the applicant for submission of his explanation within 15 days. By that time, the disciplinary authority was fully in agreement with the enquiry report and when the applicant submitted his explanation/ submission, the disciplinary authority without following the procedure as prescribed under Rules, remitted the matter to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry. The procedure as adopted Page 6 of 14 by the disciplinary authority is not akin to the rules and regulations applicable in the matter. If the disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in its report, then the disciplinary authority must recorded its reasons for dis-agreement and a copy thereof shall be supplied to the delinquent employee calling his explanation and thereafter only the case can be remitted to the disciplinary authority for further enquiry. Since this procedure has not been followed by the disciplinary authority, thus, second enquiry report, which has been submitted only after re- appreciation of evidence cannot be taken into consideration and no punishment can be imposed on the basis of the said enquiry report. It is also argued that the applicant was not aware about the pendency of criminal case and due to this reason, he did not disclose the same in the attestation form. He never obtained bail in the criminal case before filling up the form. The applicant obtained bail as and when the matter came to his knowledge and thus, it cannot be taken as suppression of material fact. The rules under which the punishment has been imposed upon the applicant is not applicable in the present matter. Thus, referring to the facts disclosed in the O.A. as well as in the R.A., learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws:-
(i) Hemant Singh Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 44499 of 1999 on 3.5.2016.
(ii) Rajamiyan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others decided by Hon'ble High Court at Rajasthan in S.B. Writ Petition No. 2208 of 1995 on 27.10.2009.
(iii) Rudresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in O.A. No. 648 of 2014 on 15.4.2023.
(iv) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 Supreme (SC) 578.
Page 7 of 146. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that it was imperative upon the applicant to disclose the pendency of criminal case in the attestation form. The specific question nos. 12 & 13 has been formulated regarding disclosure of criminal case, but the applicant made disclosure in negative; whereas criminal case was pending against him. Thus, it is clear case of suppression of material fact and provision under which the punishment has been imposed upon the applicant is clearly attracted in the present matter. It is also argued that the disciplinary authority was enough competent to remit the case to the Enquiry Officer by disagreeing with the enquiry report for making further enquiry. It is also argued that second Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry properly has submitted enquiry report, thus, submission raised on behalf of the applicant is not acceptable and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the punishment order.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the pleadings available on record.
8. The issue involved in this OA is whether the action of the respondents in removing the applicant from service is justified or not? The facts as projected by the applicant in the O.A. are not in dispute.
9. In the case of Hemant Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad has held as under:-
"12. It has further come on record before this Court that ultimately, petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, and the court concerned has returned a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges, and petitioner is entitled to be exonerated of the charges. Petitioner is 8 otherwise continuing during pendency of this petition.
13. From the facts and circumstances, which appear on record, this Court finds that a plausible case had been set up by the petitioner before the authorities, in the peculiar circumstances, that no suppression or false disclosure was made by him. The original form, which has been produced before the Court, has been filled in English, and it cannot be ruled out that the same may have been filled by some other person, as the writing is different from the signature. No finding has been returned by the enquiry officer that about 250-300 persons were not required to fill up form on the same night, as alleged, and the fact pleaded by the petitioner about absence of light and opportunity to Page 8 of 14 the petitioner to read out the form has not been specifically rejected. In view of the findings returned by the enquiry officer, as well as the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority, this Court finds that it is not a case, in which petitioner has made any false disclosure, or that any false certificate has been produced by him. In such circumstances, the punishment meted out to petitioner by the disciplinary authority would have sufficiently served the purpose. I am further of the opinion that necessary ingredients to invoke revisional jurisdiction were clearly lacking in the present case, and the circular of the Central Government had no applicability, in view of the findings returned above. The order of the revisional authority, therefore, cannot be sustained.
14. The writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 27.5.1999 is set aside. It is, however, provided that the punishment, which has already been imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, is not being interfered with, as the same is not under challenge.
10. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Rajamiyan (supra), it has been held as under:-
"........ Under sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 the disciplinary authority is having power to remand a case either for further inquiry or for de novo inquiry but not to ask for a fresh inquiry report just by re appreciation of evidence already available. In such circumstances, if the disciplinary authority is not in agreement with the findings given by the inquiry officer then he may record the reasons for disagreement and by seeking comments thereon from the delinquent employee he may pass an appropriate order.
In the present case the disciplinary authority in quite unambiguous terms reached at the conclusion that the inquiry was laconic and therefore he remanded the matter for further inquiry to the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, therefore, should have inquired the matter further and on basis of the further inquiry and the material made available to him as a consequent to further inquiry should have given a fresh inquiry report. Instead of doing so the inquiry officer has just re- appreciated the evidence that was earlier available and on the basis of which a different opinion was formed by him, which is not at all permissible in any quasi judicial inquiry. The disciplinary authority too failed to appreciate that in pursuant to the order Annexure-10 date 10.8.1993 no further inquiry was made by the inquiry officer.
As a matter of fact, in the present case the inquiry officer has changed his opinion as per wishes of the disciplinary authority who held the inquiry conducted earlier laconic. In such circumstances, the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer on 18.12.1993 is not at all valid, and therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority passed upon the findings given under an invalid inquiry report are illegal. The order of the disciplinary authority, therefore, is bad and as such same deserves to be quashed.
11. This Tribunal in the case of Rudresh Kumar (supra), it has been observed as under:-
"Learned counsel for the applicants argued that since on enquiry report representation has already been submitted by the applicant to the disciplinary authority and by that time no dissent note has been served to the applicant, therefore, first dissent note served by the disciplinary authority to the applicant was illegal. Due to this reason, the same was quashed by the Revisionary Authority in the order dated 22.10.2013.Second dissent note is also illegal as the same is passed against the observation recorded by Revisionary Authority in the order dated 22.10.2013, He contended that after going through the impugned 4 order, it would be seen that the respondent NO. 5 has not signed on the drafted order but impugned order was printed on the signed blank paper of the respondent No. 5. Learned counsel further contended that Page 9 of 14 respondent No. 4 and 5 while issuing 2nd dissent note against the inquiry report has mentioned that "as per available evidence, charges are proved" but what were those evidence which have not been considered by the Inquiry officer, has not been mentioned in the impugned dissent note, hence 2nd dissent note is vitiated."
12. We may state that if the disciplinary authority is not in agreement with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, then he may record the reasons for disagreement and by seeking comments thereon from the delinquent employee, he may pass an appropriate order, which he failed to do so. Rule 15(1) empowers the disciplinary authority for remitting the case to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry in case of disagreement with the enquiry report. In the case, in hand, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 3.7.2019 and the disciplinary authority did not record any disagreement note with the enquiry report by directing the applicant to submit his version/reply against the findings of enquiry report and as such the disciplinary authority (respondent no.3) is not competent for further enquiry by order dated 8.11.2019. Once the power conferred under Rule 15(2) has been exercised, then there is no occasion for retrospective exercise of rule 15(1). It is also necessary to mention here that the reason for disagreement with the first enquiry report has neither been assigned by the disciplinary authority while passing the order dated 8.11.2019 nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the applicant while passing the order for further enquiry. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents either during the course of hearing or in the Counter Affidavit.
13. In the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 Supreme (SC) 578, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.Page 10 of 14
(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: -
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppression veri or suggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him".
14. In the recent pronouncement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others in Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6009 of 2016 decided on 2.5.2022 has held as under:-
Page 11 of 14"At one stage after the matter being heard, detailed order was passed by this Court on 21st October, 2021 and taking note of the judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) directed the employer to review its decision in the light of the decision of this Court. In compliance thereof, the review order has been passed on 23 rd December, 2021 confirming its earlier decision of discharge dated 24 th April, 2015. The bare perusal of the review order dated 23 rd December, 2021, itself indicates that the authority has not applied its mind and just after reproduction of facts, confirmed the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015.
15. It may be further noticed that in para 5(c) of the order, a reference has been made of the affidavit submitted by the appellant at the time of filling his application form, but on the day when the application form was filled, the information which he disclosed in terms of clause 9(f) of employment notice indisputedly, no criminal case on that date was either instituted or pending against him. It is relevant to note that the employment notice is of 27 th February, 2011 and the alleged criminal case was instituted on 4 th April, 2011. At the same time, the authority has not even considered the scope and ambit of Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 that after verification of the character/antecedents of the incumbent, it will be an obligation upon the authority to examine as to whether the incumbent/recruit is suitable to become a member of the force and without appreciation in a mechanical manner confirmed the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015.
16. The judgment relied upon by the respondent Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya2 may not be of any assistance for the reason that it was a case where the respondent employee before submitting application pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications was convicted by the competent Court of jurisdiction and this fact was not disclosed by him while filling his application form and that was the reason favoured upon the Court while upholding action of the authority in 2 (2021) 10 SCC 136 passing the order of termination which was impugned in the proceedings. We have already quoted paragraph 38 of the judgment by a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and in the context of the factual background of the present case applied the said principles. One distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that the criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post submission of the application form. We have also taken into account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and that the matter was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude. Further, the proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal. As is clear from paragraph 38 in Avtar Singh (supra), all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities, must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, including the nature and type of lapse.
17. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, at the time of attestation form filled by the appellant, the criminal case was already registered against him but it may be noticed that at the very threshold, the complainant filed his affidavit that the complaint which FIR came to be registered was due to misunderstanding and he did not want to pursue his case any further, but still charge sheet came to be filed and on the first date of hearing, the alleged victim PW.1 did not support case of the prosecution and thus the order of clean acquittal came to be passed by the learned Judge of competent jurisdiction by judgment dated 12th August, 2011.
18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside."
15. In the case, in hand, the applicant was appointed way back in the year 1997 and he continued as such till 21.4.2020 i.e. more than two decades and in the meanwhile he attained the Page 12 of 14 status of permanent employee in the department. More-over, the word 'warning' was not recorded at the top of the verification in the attestation form. Not only that, no disagreement note has been furnished to the applicant. Once the disciplinary authority after accepting the enquiry report as submitted by the Enquiry officer called the reply/representation against the findings of Enquiry Officer and even after submission of reply against the findings of Enquiry Officer, thereafter the respondents cannot be permitted to take 'U' turn by submitting disagreement note after a lapse of more than four months and as such the procedure as adopted by the respondents is faulty one and is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law.
16. Since the applicant was not served with a copy of dis- agreement note; whereas it was imperative on the part of the disciplinary authority to first serve a copy of dis-agreement note to the delinquent employee, thus, on the sole ground itself, the enquiry conducted in the matter as well as punishment imposed upon the applicant became redundant and illegal. It may be mentioned that while conducting the enquiry, it is expected that the Enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority both shall follow the rules and regulations applicable in the matter in strict sense. Non-adherence of the rules and regulations and non- observing the principles of natural justice will create doubt about the authenticity of the enquiry report. If the disciplinary authority has not followed the procedure as prescribed for imposing the punishment upon the delinquent employee, certainly in that situation the steps taken by the disciplinary authority would not be sustainable in the eyes of law.
17. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, O.A. succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Orders dated 21.4.2020 and 2.9.2020 passed by the respondent nos. 3 & 2 respectively are quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith on the post on which Page 13 of 14 he was working prior to impugned orders subject to decision of criminal case pending against him in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. No order as to costs.
18. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member-A Member-J
Girish/-
Page 14 of 14