Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India on 12 October, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA NO.2603 of 2011 Orders reserved on : 04.10.2013. Orders pronounced on : 12.11.2013 HONBLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Dharmender Kumar Gupta, R/o CB-4, Block-C, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110 064. Office Address: Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE-EX (GO-16359) Mahangar Telephone Nigam Limited, Telephone Exchange, Delhi Cantt. .Applicant (By Advocate : Shri K.P. Gupta) versus 1. Union of India, Through : The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication, 915, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Union Public Service Commission, (Sangh Lok Seva Ayog) Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069. Through its Chairman, 3. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. Through its: Chairman and Managing Director .Respondents (By Advocates : Shri Hilal Haider for R-1, Shri Ashish Nischal for R-2 and Shri Vaibhav Kalra for R-3) O R D E R SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) :
The applicant in this Original Application is aggrieved by the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondents. The reliefs sought by him are to quash and set aside the chargesheet dated 21.12.2006, Inquiry Report dated 20.3.2009, Disagreement Note of the Disciplinary Authority dated 9.6.2006 and its subsequent order dated 16.3.2011 and the Appellate Authoritys order dated 17.5.2011.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents, vide Annexure A/3 Memorandum dated 21.12.2006, proposed to hold an inquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Charges framed against him were as under:-
Article-1 That the said Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE (GO-16359) while working as SDE (CSMS) West-II, MTNL, New Delhi during the year 1999-2000 connived with the subscribers of telephone numbers 5177002 & 5033600 for giving them undue monetory benefit with malafide intention by attesting the signatures of the subscribers on application for provision of STD/ISD on telephone number 5933600 and for shifting of STD/ISD telephone number 5177002 and for call transfer facility on the same telephone.
Article-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Ravindra Gupta, SDE (GO-16359) suppressed the meter-readings of telephone numbers 5177002, 5933600, 5678608 & 5678657 with ulterior motive and malafide intention resulting in the short billing and consequence loss to MTNL.
3. As the applicant did not admit the aforesaid charges, an inquiry was held against him in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Inquiry Officer, vide Annexure A-4 inquiry report dated 20.3.2009, held that both the aforesaid article of charges were partly proved to the extent that he failed to maintain devotion to duty thereby violated Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. However, according to the said report, the charge that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in the manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 has not been sustained due to lack of evidence. The conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer in the said report is reproduced below:-
9.0 Conclusions :
Malafide intensions aggravate the seriousness of the misconduct. An act of public servant is not honest when it is not just and fair or when it causes wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The malafide intention is to be judged from the circumstances of each transaction or responsibility vested with officer and finally what a prudent & rational person would do in those circumstances and with those responsibilities.
During the course of enquiry, which covered a span of around 18 months, bearing in mind principles of Natural Justice and providing reasonable opportunity to defend the case, all efforts were made to collect the documents asked by SPS from the custodians as is evident from the correspondences available in the file. If these documents although asked by SPS but nevertheless being important piece of evidence for the inquiry, were made available to the inquiry, it would have been of extreme help to analyze the sequence of events resulting in fraud.
On the basis of assessment of the evidence made above in Para-8 along with available records of the inquiry and oral evidences of the witnesses, the following conclusions are drawn in this case.
Vide Article-I which is statement of article of charges framed against Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE (GO-16359) and Annexure-II which is statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehavior in support of article of charges on which action is proposed to be taken against Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE (GO-16359), it is concluded that SPS did not act in just manner, as he attested the different signatures of same subscriber in two application forms and was negligent in discharging the responsibility and power vested in him being gazetted officer. The suspension on SPS is based only on the fact of attestation of documents by him and no other evidence. The attestation of applications by SPS in itself do not amount to any misconduct, as it was the departmental norm/ practice to get attested the signatures of subscribers by gazetted officers for any provision of facility.
He failed to maintain devotion to duty, being negligent in discharging his assigned responsibilities.
Vide Article-II of Annexure-I which is statement of article of charges framed against Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE (GO-16359) and Annexure-II which is statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour in support of article of charges on which action is proposed to be taken against Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE (GO-16359), the allegation that SPS suppressed the meter reading of telephone numbers 5177002, 5933600, 5678608 & 5678657 based on the responsibility assigned to SPS raises the needle of suspicion on him. However, the evidences to corroborate the charge/suspicion on SPS were not made available to the inquiry to establish the involvement of SPS in suppressing the meter readings. It is worth mentioning that charge of such serious nature involving huge loss of Rs.1,00,08,336/- to MTNL should have been supported with vital evidences/documents since a high degree of proof is required to sustain the allegations. No direct evidence was adduced during the inquiry to prove that the SPS has suppressed the meter reading.
However, there is no undeniable fact that SPS was negligent in dealing with his responsibilities related to handling of root password for which he was authorized to be a unique user. He failed to maintain devotion to duty, being negligent in discharging his assigned responsibilities regarding handling of system password to maintain confidentiality and secrecy.
10.FINDINGS:
On The basis of evidence produced before the inquiry by prosecution as well as defence including prosecution and defence brief, as analyzed in detail in paragraph 8 and conclusions drawn in paragraph 9 above, the following findings are adduced in this case:
The charge against Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE(CSMS) (GO-16359) for Article-I as narrated in Annexure-I and elaborated in Annexure-II of the charge memo is partly established upto the extent that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The charge against Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE (CSMS) (GO-16359) for Article-II as narrated in Annexure-II and elaborated in Annnexure-II of the charge memo is partly established upto the extent that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
However, the charge that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 is not sustained due to lack of evidence and documents produced before the inquiry and therefore not established. However, the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer held that charge in article-II has been fully proved for the following reasons:-
The charge in Article-II which has been held as partly proved by the IO in his inquiry report, is not acceptable for the reason that Charged Officer (C.O.) Shri R.K. Gupta, SDE was system administrator having master user ID and route password of CSMS system through which he could modify or delete any data in the system. State Witness (SW-2) & Defence Witness (DW-1) deposed before the IO that C.O. was having route password and user ID. SW-2 also deposed that the C.O. allowed password to commercial unit for commercial activities. It is apparent that the C.O. allowed the user ID and password to other unit knowingly and never put any control resulting in misuse of password. It was the responsibility of the C.O. to ensure that the user ID and password should not be misused by others. It is observed that the C.O. was negligent in discharging his assigned responsibilities regarding handling of system password to maintain confidentiality and secrecy which led suppression of meter reading. To this extent charge in Article-II is to be held as fully proved.
2. The said Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta is hereby informed that he may make such representation in the matter as he may wish to make. Such representation, if any, shall be submitted in writing within fifteen days of the receipt of this Memorandum, failing which it will be presumed that he has no representation to make, and further necessary action in the matter is liable to be taken accordingly.
4. The applicant made a detailed representation replying to the aforesaid inquiry report dated 20.3.2009 and disagreement note dated 29.6.2009 stating that there was not an iota of evidence against him in support of charges as held by the inquiry officer in his report and, therefore, he is to be honourably exonerated from them. However, the disciplinary authority, vide its Annexure A-8 order dated 3.5.2010, imposed upon him the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
4. The CO has tried his best to shift his responsibility to other officials. The CO has also tried to find faults in the charge sheet. The CO has admitted in his representation that he was having user ID as GOI6359 and route password only. The CO has also admitted that he had changed route password whenever warranted and made entries of change in CSMS RG Log Book available in CSMS, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Since it was the prime responsibility of the CO to ensure that the password remains unique and whenever it was used by IT unit on demand and given back, the secrecy maintained and misuse avoided. Also, during the usage by other officials of IT unit at BCP on demand, proper record should have been maintained to fix responsibility to other unit for the job being carried out by other unit during this period. The CO was not vigilant enough to maintain confidentiality of the password which led to suppression/tampering of telephone bills in question and that MTNL sufficient a loss of Rs.1.00.08.336/-. Thus, the reply submitted by the CO is not convening and thus not accepted by the competent authority.
5. The competent disciplinary authority has carefully considered the records of the case, the submissions made by Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta in his written statement of defence dated 12.8.2009, and all other facts and circumstances relevant to this case. Considering the circumstances in totality and on an objective assessment of the entire case, I, S.C, Misra, Member (Services), Telecom Commission hereby remove from service the said Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, with immediate effect with further direction that the penalty of removal from service shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government.
5. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority before this Tribunal, vide OA No.1974/2010 but the same was dismissed, vide Order dated 15.6.2010 at the admission stage itself granting liberty to the applicant to avail statutory remedy of appeal to the competent authority against the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the applicant filed Annexure A-10 appeal dated 21.6.2010 and the appellate authority referred his case to the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as UPSC) for its advise and the UPSC in turn, vide its advice dated 16.3.2011 held that the penalty of removal from service was on the higher side and, therefore, it was to be modified to that of reduction of pay by five stages in the same scale of pay for a period of four years with further direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments. While advising the appellate authority accordingly they have made the following observations:-
4.1 The Commission note that the Appellant in his appeal has pointed out that the Joint Surprise Check team in its report dated 13.3.2000 had also named the then Data Base Administrator Shri Naresh Kumar. However, no inquiry was conducted against him. Rather the said Shri Naresh Kumar was produced as a Prosecution Witness. The Appellant has pleaded that the findings of the I.O. regarding attesting different signatures of the same subscriber on two applications was not a charge and no evidence was there to prove it. With regard to the observations of I.O. regarding attesting different signatures of the same subscriber on two applications was not a charge and no evidence was there to prove it. With regard to the observations of I.O. that the Appellant was negligent in dealing with responsibilities related to handling of root password for which he was authorized to be a unique user and failed to maintain devotion to duty, the Appellant has argued that issue of handling of root password was not a subject matter of the inquiry and the IO has exceeded the scope of inquiry.
4.2 The appellant has also challenged the observation of the DA in the Disagreement Memo that his negligence in maintaining the confidentiality and secrecy of the system password led to suppression of meter reading. He asserts that these were not the charges framed against him and the DA has leveled a fresh charge against him. The Appellant points out that in the instant case neither any additional charge was framed in terms of Explanation of Rule 14 (23) nor any opportunity was afforded to him defend himself. He further pleaded that the issue of user/misuser/confidentiality/secrecy of password and attestation of different signatures of the same subscriber in two forms, were never questioned by the I.O. during the mandatory examination of the Appellant in terms of sub rule 18 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Had an opportunity been afforded to him he could have led sufficient evidence to show that meter reading could not have been suppressed merely with the root password of the Appellant and the first line maintenance and control of the CSMS systems of Delhi was in the hands of IT Unit, MTNL, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. He claims that the password was being used constantly by officers of IT unit with the knowledge of higher officers. He had informed his higher officers about the insecurity of the CSMS Rajouri Garden vide various letters exhibited as D-4 to D-7 & D-9, but no instructions at any point of time were issued. Instead, he was directed to share the same with IT unit, Bhikaji Cama Place because the main custodian of root password was IT unit, not the CSMS unit. To defend himself, the Appellant requested for supply of various documents including SU log file, audit trail and transaction log etc. which were not supplied to him. Had the same been supplied, the true and correct pictures would have emerged. The Appellant claims that the manipulation in the meter reading could only be caused either by the Data Base Administrator or It unit.
4.3 The Commission observe that the Appellant has also quoted certain judgments of the CAT, and the Honble Supreme Court of India.
4.4. In his comments on the appeal, the D.A. has asserted that this is a fact that the Appellant was negligent in dealing his responsibilities related to handling of root password and this failure led to suppression of meter reading. He has underlined the fact that while attesting the signatures of the subscriber in Ex S-4, the Appellants remarks were totally unwarranted and is a clear evidence of his connivance with the subscriber. The action of the Appellant in attesting two different signatures of single subscriber clearly establishes his proximity with the subscriber and ulterior motives. While reiterating the observations of I.O. with regard to the Appellants negligence in handling of root password, the D.A. has observed that the C.O./Appellant was given ample opportunity during the inquiry and the IO submitted his report only after examining each and every document and witnesses. As a system administrator the Appellant was well aware of the loop holes in the security system of CSMS. On the issue of other logins like billing and oracle, D.A. has stated that it is a fact that tampering and manipulation was possible with the user of billing and oracle user with super user ROOT. Being a system administrator, the Appellant demanded such documents like SU log, et/password as he was aware that the same cannot be provided after a gap of more than seven years.
4.5 The D.A. has further asserted that the penalty imposed is as per rule, and the charges against the Appellant were established based on evidences and witnesses and orders were as per the provisions under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The D.A. has also stated that attestation of application does not amount to any misconduct, but attestation of fake signatures of the subscribers and giving certificate that the subscriber is known to him for the last three years is a clear evidence of his connivance with such untraceable subscribers. DA has also asserted that the CO/Appellant was charged only after detailed investigation and in memo dated 29.6.2009 he has only reiterated the charges already leveled against him. The judgments quoted by the Appellant were not relevant and he was provided with all available documents sought by him. The D.A. has concluded that it is established that the meter reading has been tampered in the CSMS billing system during 1999-2000 against four telephone numbers resulting in loss of Rs.1,00,08,336/-to the MTNL. The meter reading had been tampered directly in data base system. The Appellant, the then SDE, being the system administrator was having access to the Root password, which authorized him to make modification/deletion/insertion in CSMS date and he was well versed with the loop of the system.
4.6 The Commission observe that there is no significant difference in the conclusions reached by IO and DA on the two articles of charge. The only material difference in the finds of the I.O. and D.A. is that I.O. held that negligence on the part of the Appellant was proved and failure to maintain absolute integrity was not proved, while the D.A. felt that the same failure was what caused suppression of the meter reading. In the disagreement memo no justification or reasoning has been recorded by the D.A. to substantiate his finding that the Appellants failure to maintain devotion to duty and negligence in handling of system password etc. had led to suppression of meter reading as the D.A. has not quoted any linking evidence which would connect the negligence on the part of Appellant to the specific act of tampering and suppression of meter reading with ulterior and malafide intention, which resulted in short billing and consequent loss to MTNL.
4.7 The D.A. has not furnished any comment on the Appellants allegation that while the CBI had names both the Appellant and Shri Naresh Kumar, DBA in its self-contained note, no inquiry was conducted against the latter and in fact Shri Naresh Kumar was produced as a witness against the Appellant to save him. There is also no rebuttal from the D.A. on the Appellants plea regarding lapse of security in CSMS systems which he claimed to have brought to the notice of DGM (IT) and other officers vide letters produced as exhibits in the inquiry. The Appellants version is, in fact, borne out by the letters dated 19.5.1999, 01.11.1999 and 25.11.1999 in which the Appellant has pointed out several instances in which changes have been made by other users and some users were created in his name by other officials. The Appellant has also pointed out in these letters that such types of things have happened previously also and there was no security in the CSMS systems. On the other hand the technical and legal grounds put forth by the Appellant mainly centre around alleged creation of additional charges. His plea that such issues were beyond the ambit of inquiry and had not been inquired into, cannot be accepted because the findings of negligence etc. emerged out of the evidence adduced during the course of inquiry and it cannot be said that these are additional charges. If as a result of the inquiry and it cannot be said that these are additional charges. If as a result of inquiry and it cannot be said that these are additional charges. If as a result of the inquiry proceedings, I.O. comes to the conclusion that the main charge relating to integrity of the C.O. could not be proved and aspects like malafide intention and connivance with fraudulent subscribers could not be established by evidence adduced, it does not mean that the I.O. cannot arrive at a lesser finding of culpability on the grounds of negligence and lack of devotion to duty. As a matter of fact, the articles of charge alleged contravention of Rule 3 (1) (i), 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (1)(ii). If I.O. has found the charge established only to the extent of contravention of Rule 3(1) (ii), it cannot be said that this is a new charge. The same applies to findings of D.A. in so far as the issue of fresh and new charge raised by the Appellant is concerned.
4.8 On the issue of non supply of various documents requested by him in the inquiry, it is observed this was one of the grounds for the I.O.s finding that linking documentary evidence showing involvement of Appellant were not made available to the inquiry and hence the role of the Appellant in the malafide activity could not be established. The Appellants plea on failure of I.O. to put question to the Appellant with regard to findings is not convincing because the inquiry proceedings show that I.O. did examine the Appellant on 6.2.2008 in his mandatory examination. He may not have raised questions with regard to evidence but it cannot be said that this alone would invalidate the inquiry in view of sufficient opportunity given otherwise to the Appellant during the proceedings.
4.9 The Commission find themselves in agreement with the finds of the I.O. on both articles of charge, although the question as to why the Appellant attested signatures of a non-existent subscriber on not one but two occasions as also his endorsement on the application on one of the fraudulent subscribers that he had known the subscriber for the last three years, remains unanswered. The I.O.s findings that attestation of signatures by gazetted officer was one of the pre requisites of commercial unit and, therefore, cannot be construed as malafide action begs the question as to why the Appellant had committed these irregularities and while nothing could be brought on record to prove any connivance or further tampering of the system etc., the needle of suspicion has not been completely deflected.
4.10 The Commission also observe that on balance it would appear to be unjust to inflict the punishment of removal on the Appellant keeping in view that the charge of lack of integrity, malafide intention, connivance with subscriber or manipulation of the system could not be proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. As things stand it would appear that while the charge of negligence and failure to maintain complete devotion to duty can be said to have been established against the Appellant on both articles of charge, the main element of the allegation viz., connivances with subscriber and suppression of meter readings etc. resulting in short billing and loss to MTNL amounting to failure to maintain absolute integrity could not be proved against the Appellant.
5. In the light of their findings, as discussed above, and after taking into account all other aspects relevant to the case, the Commission consider that the penalty of removal from service imposed on Shri R.K. Gupta, Ex SDE was rather on the higher side and was not commensurate with the charges proved against him and that it should be modified to that of reduction of pay by five stages in the same scale of pay for a period of four years with the direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments. The appeal preferred by Shri R.K. Gupta, Ex.SDE should be partially accepted. They advise accordingly.
6. The appellate authority on the above advise received from the UPSC, reduced the punishment from removal from service to that of reduction of pay by five stages in the same scale of pay for a period of four years with the direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments, vide its order dated 17.3.2011.
7. The applicant challenged the aforesaid report of the inquiry officer, orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authorities in this OA on the following grounds:-
(i) The disciplinary authority has not supplied him the additional documents sought by him to disprove the charges leveled against him. He has also submitted that the inquiry officer has himself in its report has admitted the above facts and observed as under:-
In his Defence Brief he has mentioned that following Additional Document listed at Sl.No.1, Sl.No.3 and SI.No.6 were not provided, pertaining to:
Commercial file of all the four telephones i.e.25177002, 25933600, 25678608, 25678657.
Done OBs with jumper letters and relevant annexure obtained in respect of these four telephone numbers.
History sheets of all these telephone numbers.
(ii) The respondents have not supplied a copy of the advise of the UPSC in advance thereby denying him an opportunity to refute the observations made therein which further resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri K.P. Gupta has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, wherein it has been held that if the authorities consult UPSC and rely on its report for taking disciplinary action then copy of report must be supplied in advance to employee concerned, otherwise it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
5. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the charge sheeted employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the same.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
8. There may be a case where the report of the Union Public Service Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that case it is certainly not necessary to supply a copy of the same to the concerned employee. However, if it is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the concerned employee, otherwise, there will be violation of the principles of natural justice. This is also the view taken by this Court in the case of S.N. Narula vs. Union of India & Others, (2011) 4 SCC 591.
9. It may be noted that the decision in S.N.Narula's case (supra) was prior to the decision in T.V.Patel's case(supra). It is well settled that if a subsequent co- ordinate bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger bench, otherwise the prior decision of a co-ordinate bench is binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength. Since, the decision in S.N.Narula's case (supra) was not noticed in T.V.Patel's case(supra), the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N.Narula's case (supra) was binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court.
(iii) The inquiry officer has not complied with the provisions contained in Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1965, which reads as under:-
(18) The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Annexure A-4 mandatory examination of SPS by IO on 6.12.2008. According to him, even though the inquiry officer has held in the said proceedings that he held the mandatory examination of the applicant but actually no such examination was held. He has also submitted that violation of the said rule is a serious flow in the disciplinary proceedings as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ministry of Finance and others vs. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227, wherein it has been held as under:-
13. It is necessary to set out the portions from the order of the Tribunal which gave the reason to come to the conclusion that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and the findings were perverse. The Tribunal, after extracting in full the evidence of SW-1, the only witness examined on the side of the prosecution, and after extracting also the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer dated 18-6-91, observed as follows :-
"After these proceedings on 18-6-91 the Enquiry Officer has only received the brief from the PO and then finalised the report. This shows that the Enquiry Officer has not attempted to question the applicant on the evidence appearing against him in the proceedings dated 18-6-91. Under sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it is incumbent on the Enquiry authority to question the officer facing the charge, broadly on the evidence appearing against him in a case where the officer does not offer himself for examination as a witness. This mandatory provision of the CCS (CCA) Rules has been lost sight of by the Enquiry authority. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that as the inquiry itself was held ex parte as the applicant did not appear in response to notice, it was not possible for the Enquiry authority to question the applicant. This argument has no force because, on 18-6-91 when the inquiry was held for recording the evidence in support of the charge, even if the Enquiry Officer has set the applicant ex parte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry hereafter/or even if the inquiry authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined in support of the charge, he should have given an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceeded to question him under sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The omission to do this is a serious error committed by the enquiry authority.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
15. On a careful perusal of the above findings of the Tribunal in the light of the materials placed before it, we do not think that there is any case for interference, particularly in the absence of full materials made available before us in spite of opportunity given to the appellants. On the facts of this case, we are of the view that the departmental enquiry conducted in this case is totally unsatisfactory and without observing the minimum required procedure for proving the charge. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in rendering the findings as above and setting aside the order impugned before it.
16. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. In this regard, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Union of India through Secretary vs. Trilok Singh in WP(C) No.1760/2009 decided on 10.3.2011. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:-
13. Regarding non-compliance of the Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules, the respondent asserted that he had not appeared as a witness during the enquiry, therefore, the enquiry officer was mandated to put the evidence adduced against him during the enquiry. Instead of putting the evidence adduced against him during the enquiry, the enquiry officer only repeated the charges which were against the respondent. It was contended that the rule is mandatory and non-compliance of the same would vitiate the enquiry proceedings. The respondent placed reliance on Ministry of Finance v. S.B.Ramesh, SLJ 1998 (2) 67. He has also relied upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lalit Kumar vs. Union of India and others, 2006 (1) SLJ (CAT) 86. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-
10. If one has regard to the import of the rule, it is obligatory upon the Enquiring Authority to generally question applicant on the circumstances appearing in the evidence brought against him. This has been enacted with a view that whatever evidence has come in the enquiry apart from a written statement, an explanation is also sought to rebut the circumstances which would be in consonance with the principle of reasonable opportunity and audi alterant pattern as inbuilt of the principles of natural justice, of which sine qua non is fair play. Applicant has stated that whereas three Articles of charge have been levelled against him, the EO has not put to him the circumstances as come-forth in the course of the disciplinary proceedings whereas it is denied by the respondents and the following examination has been referred to as a valid compliance of Rule 14(18): General Examination of Shri Lalit Kumar, EE (E) AIR.
Q.I The charge-sheet says that you tried to manipulate the figures in the rest report to cover-up your acceptance of alternator of lesser from size. What do you have to say about it?
A. I have not tried to manipulate the figures in test report. It was a human error. This has been verified by SE (E) in 1990.
Q. 2 Do you have anything else to say?
A. I have performed my duty with devotion keeping in view interest of work as well as terms and conditions of agreement. I deny all the charges.
11. The Apex Court Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh upheld the conclusions of the Tribunal whereby the enquiry has been held to be illegal for want of compliance of Rule 14(18) ibid.
12. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. 1826/98, Charanjit Singh Khurana v. Union of India, decided on 14.9.2000, regarding compliance of Rule 14(18) observed as under:
As regards the contention of the applicant by taking resort to Rule 14(18) is concerned, where it is mandated upon the Enquiry Officer to question the applicant as to the circumstanced against him in the evidence to enable him to explain the same, the learned Counsel of the applicant states that being a substantive provision of the procedure its non-compliance, which is not denied in the present case has vitiated the enquiry as he has been greatly prejudiced in the matter of his defence. The applicant stated that on the perusal of the evidence of Sh. R. Parmeshwar and his cross-examination a non-committal reply has come on record. As the previous O.A. was allowed due to non-examination and cross-examination of R. Parmeshwar answers to the question of the witnesses clearly demonstrate that the earlier stand has been negated. In this background it is stated that it was essential for the Enquiry Officer to accord an opportunity to the applicant to explain the aforesaid evidence which required his explanation as to contradiction by a witness to his own question. The learned Counsel of the applicant has further placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Ministry of Finances. S.B. Ramesh, , wherein appeal had been preferred against the order of compulsory retirement to the Tribunal and was allowed as there has not been any attempt on the part of the inquiry as there has not been any attempt on the part of the Inquiry Officer to question the delinquent's reply as under Rule 14(18) on the evidence appearing against him despite an ex-parte proceedings the Apex Court affirmed the decision of the law laid down by the Tribunal as to the violation of Rule 14(18). The learned Counsel of the applicant has further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ghanshyam Kahat v. Union of India 1989 (10) ATC 774 where infirmity by not following the provisions of Rule 14(18) has been held to have vitiated the enquiry. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in S. Gopalan v. Directorate General of Works, C.P.W.D. 1991 (16) ATC 691, wherein it has been held that having failed to question the delinquent under Rule 14(18) the inquiry is vitiated and amounts to denial of an opportunity.
13. The aforesaid decision was carried before the High Court in CWP No. 69/2002 and ultimately in SLP No. 9816/2002 this finding of the Tribunal was upheld by a reasoned order. Accordingly the aforesaid dicta is no more res integra and is a binding precedent on us.
14. Now it has to be examined whether Rule 14(18) is complied with or not? The only question as put to applicant is that as a referral to the charge-sheet where applicant has been alleged to have manipulated the figures in the test report, but this is not the true import of Rule 14(18). It appears that the contents of the charge sheet have been put to applicant without any reference to the evidence and circumstances appearing against applicant during the course of disciplinary proceedings.
15. Rule 14(18) clearly provides that it is obligatory upon the Enquiring Authority to question the delinquent official on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances as there is no reference to the evidence brought on record or circumstances appearing against applicant the general examination which has taken place on 5.5.98 is not the valid compliance of Rule 14(18) ibid and the stand taken by the respondents is misconceived.
16. In the light of the Apex Court decision in S.B. Ramesh (supra) and decision of the Tribunal upheld by the Delhi High Court as well as the Apex Court in Charanjit Singh Khurana (supra) by not putting the circumstances against applicant in the form of evidence brought against him by the EO a prejudice has been caused to him as he has been deprived of an opportunity to explain the circumstances and as a mandatory substantive provision of procedure non-compliance vitiates the enquiry and we are of the considered view that even the test of prejudice would not be applicable in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma.
(iv) The appellate authority has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the appellate authority has simply copied the advise given by the UPSC verbatim based upon which the impugned penalty has been awarded to him.
(v) The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the inquiry officers report and thereby imposing the punishment, has taken extraneous matters into consideration. In this regard, he has referred to disagreement note of the disciplinary authority wherein it has been stated that it is apparent that the applicant allowed the user ID and password to other unit knowingly and never put any control resulting in misuse of password. Further it has been stated therein that it was the prime responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the user ID and password should not be misused by others. However, the applicant was negligent in discharging his assigned responsibilities regarding handling of system password for which he was authorized to be the unique user. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the disciplinary and the appellate authorities have passed their orders on the basis of the aforesaid observations but the same was never being the part of the article of charges framed against him.
8. The respondent no.1 has filed its reply justifying the impugned order passed by the respondents and refuting the submissions made by the applicant in the OA. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Shri Hilal Haider has submitted that it is incorrect to say that the appellate authority did not apply its mind while deciding the appeal preferred by the applicant. In fact, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service, vide its order dated 3.5.2010, but after taking into account the points taken by the applicant in his appeal, records of the case and the advise tendered by the UPSC, the appellate authority modified the aforesaid penalty into that of reduction of pay by five stages in the same scale of pay for a period of four years with further direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments. He has also stated that the impugned orders have been passed after following prescribed procedure by the competent authority and after giving full opportunity to the applicant for submission of his defence.
9. The respondent no.3 has also filed a separate reply stating that the charges leveled against the applicant are based on the vigilance inquiry report conducted by the Vigilance Unit. He has also stated that the disciplinary authority has observed that the Charged Officer (applicant) was negligent in discharging the duties and in handling the system password for which he was authorized to be the unique user. Further according to them, the disciplinary authority passed a speaking order after going through all the aspect of the case and with full application of mind. They have also submitted that the applicant is fully responsible, being system administrator having master user ID and route password of CSMS system through which he could modify or delete any data in the system. It was his prime responsibility to ensure that the user ID and password should not be misused by others. They have also submitted that penalty imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority was after considering the inquiry report along with the disagreement note.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri K.P. Gupta, Shri Hilal Haider, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Shri Ashish Nischal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri Vaibhav Kalra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. We have also carefully perused the records of the case and also carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
11. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. vs. P.C. Kakkar reported in 2003 (4) SCC 364, this Tribunal is not to sit as an appellate authority over the decisions of the authorities as prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules. The scope of interference by the Tribunals/Courts in disciplinary matters is also very limited. However, there is no doubt that the Tribunal can interfere in the disciplinary proceedings when it is a case of no evidence or the report of the inquiry officer and orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities are based on extraneous consideration. The Tribunals/Courts can also interfere when the inquiry proceedings are not held in accordance with the relevant rules as well as principles of natural justice are not complied with. In the aforesaid case, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
It is settled that the court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of Wednesbury principle the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. We have, therefore, considered this case within the scope of interference in the disciplinary matters as determined by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case.
12. As regard Article-I is concerned, the allegations against the applicant was that he suppressed the meter-readings of telephone numbers 5177002, 5933600, 5678608 & 5678657. Based on the responsibility assigned to his the needle of suspicion was pointed on him. However, the evidences to corroborate the charge/suspicion on the applicant were not made available to the inquiry to establish the involvement of the applicant in suppressing the meter readings. The inquiry officer has also held that charge of such serious nature involving huge loss of Rs.1,00,08,336/- to the respondent - MTNL should have been supported with vital evidences/documents since a high degree of proof is required to sustain the allegations. However, no direct evidence was adduced during the inquiry to prove that the applicant has suppressed the meter reading. However, the inquiry officer held that the applicant was negligent in dealing with his responsibilities relating to handling of root password for which he was authorized to be a unique user. He failed to maintain devotion to duty, being negligent in discharging his assigned responsibilities regarding handling of system password to maintain confidentiality and secrecy. Therefore, the findings of the inquiry officer was that so far as Article-I was concerned, the charge was partly established to the extent that he failed to maintain devotion to duty thereby violated Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which reads as under:-
The charge against Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, SDE(CSMS) (GO-16359) for Article-I as narrated in Annexure-I and elaborated in Annexure-II of the charge memo is partly established upto the extent that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
13. As regards Article-II is concerned, the same was also partially established to the extent that he failed to maintain devotion to duty thereby violated the aforesaid rules. Further findings of the inquiry officer is that the charge that the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant, thereby contravening Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 is not sustained due to lack of evidence. The said rules are reproduced as under:-
3. GENERAL:
(1) Every Government servant shall at all times--
(i) maintain absolute integrity;
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.
14. In our considered view, the report of the inquiry officer is nothing but perverse. Once he says that charges are not proved, his findings to the contrary that charge was partially proved will amount to perversity. No doubt, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 Vs A.Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332, this Tribunal when called upon, it has to go into the veracity of the allegations/charge against a delinquent official where they are based on no evidence, i.e. where they are perverse. It is also required to examine the procedural correctness of the decision making process. In our considered view the findings of the inquiry officer is quite vague. The first charge against the applicant was that he connived with the subscribers of telephone numbers 5177002 & 5033600 for giving them undue monetory benefit with malafide intention by attesting the signatures of the subscribers on application for provision of STD/ISD on telephone number 5933600 and for shifting of STD/ISD telephone number 5177002 and for call transfer facility on the same telephone. The second charge was that the applicant suppressed the meter-readings of telephone numbers 5177002, 5933600, 5678608 & 5678657 with ulterior motive and malafide intention resulting in the short billing and consequence loss to MTNL. According to the inquiry officer both the above charges have not been proved. Then what is the meaning in his saying that the memo of charges have been partly established upto the extent that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
15. Coming to the disagreement note, it is seen that the disciplinary authority has already held that the charge in Article-II was fully proved. It was only thereafter, the aforesaid disagreement note has been conveyed to the applicant, vide Memorandum dated 29.6.2009. The Apex Court in the case of Lav Nigam v. Chairman and MD, ITI Ltd. and Anr., (2006) 9 SCC 440, has held that the final expression of the opinion by the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with some of the components of the charge is against the mandate of the provision contained in Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1965 as well as the principles of natural justice.
16. The disagreement note has to be tentative and if the disciplinary authority has already made up its mind holding that the charges have been duly proved it is only an empty formality in conveying such disagreement note to the delinquent officer to make his representation. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
11. In Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra(1998) 7 SCC 84 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1783 a Bench of this Court considered Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The Regulation itself did not provide for the giving of any notice before the disciplinary authority differed with the view of the enquiry officer. This Court held: (SCC p. 97, para 19) "The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer."
12. This view has been reiterated in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra(1999) 7 SCC 739 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1385. In this case also Rule 9(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 did not specifically provide for a disciplinary authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer before differing with the view of the enquiry officer. The Court said: (SCC p. 758, para 29) "But the requirement of 'hearing' in consonance with the principles of natural justice even at that stage has to be read into Rule 9(2) and it has to be held that before the disciplinary authority finally disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority, it would give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer so that he may have the opportunity to indicate that the findings recorded by the enquiring authority do not suffer from any error and that there was no occasion to take a different view. The disciplinary authority, at the same time, has to communicate to the delinquent officer the 'TENTATIVE' reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiring authority so that the delinquent officer may further indicate that the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiring authority are not germane and the finding of 'not guilty' already recorded by the enquiring authority was not liable to be interfered with."
(See also State Bank of India v. K.R Narayanan Kutty(2003) 2 SCC 449 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 185.)
13. We have already quoted the extracts from the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority. It is clear that no notice at all was given before the disciplinary authority recorded its final conclusions differing with the finding of fact of the inquiry officer. The notice to show cause was merely a show-cause against the proposed punishment. In view of the long line of authorities, the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside.
17. Again, rightly argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that mandatory provisions of Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have not been complied with even though the proceedings dated 6.12.2008 before the inquiry officer has been termed by the Inquiry Officer as mandatory examination of the applicant. A reading of the aforesaid proceedings would reveal that nowhere the Inquiry Officer has generally examined the applicant as required under the aforesaid rule. As held by the Apex Court in the case of S.B. Ramesh (supra) that by violation of the aforesaid rule, which is mandatory in character is in violation of principles of natural justice. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
13. It is necessary to set out the portions from the order of the Tribunal which gave the reason to come to the conclusion that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and the findings were perverse. The Tribunal, after extracting in full the evidence of SW-1, the only witness examined on the side of the prosecution, and after extracting also the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer dated 18-6-91, observed as follows :-
"After these proceedings on 18-6-1991 the Enquiry Officer has only received the brief from the PO and then finalised the report. This shows that the Enquiry Officer has not attempted to question the applicant on the evidence appearing against him in the proceedings dated 18-6-91. Under sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it is incumbent on the Enquiry authority to question the officer facing the charge, broadly on the evidence appearing against him in a case where the officer does not offer himself for examination as a witness. This mandatory provision of the CCS (CCA) Rules has been lost sight of by the Enquiry authority. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that as the inquiry itself was held ex parte as the applicant did not appear in response to notice, it was not possible for the Enquiry authority to question the applicant. This argument has no force because, on 18-6-91 when the inquiry was held for recording the evidence in support of the charge, even if the Enquiry Officer has set the applicant ex parte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry hereafter/or even if the inquiry authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined in support of the charge, he should have given an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceeded to question him under sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The omission to do this is a serious error committed by the enquiry authority.
18. Another important lacune in this case as we find is that it is the appellate authority which has called for the advise of the UPSC. However, as provided in Rule 14 (29) (a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, it is the disciplinary authority who has to take the advise of the UPSC in such matters. The said rule reads as under:-
(29) Procedure to be adopted for referring disciplinary cases to UPSC for advice. -The following procedure should be adopted for referring disciplinary cases to the UPSC for advice:--
(a) Original cases:-
(i) When no enquiry has been held, i.e., so far as proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules or a corresponding rule are concerned, only the memorandum containing the allegations and the official reply thereto should be sent to the Commission and it shall not be necessary to send a self-contained factual note as a rule. But a note should be sent where clarifications /comments have to be given to explain the points made in the officials explanation. These clarifications/comments should, however, be only factual and procedural and should form part of the record.
(ii) Where action under Rule 15 (now Rule 14) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, or a corresponding rule has been initiated and an enquiry has been held, but the Government consider in the light of the explanation furnished by the officer and the findings of the Enquiry Officer that there is no need to impose a major penalty, there may not be any need for preparing a self-contained note except where it is necessary to clarify the factual/procedural points in the light of any remarks contained in the enquiry report. In the letter forwarding the records to the Commission or in a separate note, it may be mentioned that the Government have reached the provisional conclusion that no major penalty is called for. The note should, however, form part of the record.
(iii) Where an enquiry has been held and the Government consider that a major penalty is called for, it will be necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to record a provisional conclusion regarding the penalty to be imposed. While forwarding the reply of the officer to the show-cause notice and the other relevant records to the Commission, it will be sufficient in such cases to deal with any factual/procedural points which may have been raised in the officer's reply to the show-cause notice, in a separate note which will form part of the record. The note should not, however, discuss the merits of the case and should not record any findings on the charge or express any opinion regarding the penalty to be imposed on the office.
19. However, in the present case, it is the appellate authority who sought the advise of the UPSC. Further it is seen that the appellate authority almost verbatim reproduced the advise of the UPSC and then reduced the punishment of the applicant from removal from service to that of reduction of pay by five stages in the same scale of pay for a period of four years with the direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments. A plain reading of the aforesaid order of the appellate authority would reveal that except for reducing the punishment which was imposed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority has not applied its mind and it is based only on the advise of the UPSC. The appellate authority has not given any reason of his own in the mater. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of State of Uttaranchal and anther vs. Sunil Kumar Singh, 2008 (11) SCC 205, has held as under :-
11. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made.
20. Again, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the applicant the advise tendered by the UPSC to the appellate authority had never been supplied to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that even though it has been stated in the appellate authoritys order that the advise of the UPSC was being sent along with it but it has never been sent to him. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant obtained the aforesaid advise under the RTI Act, 2005. As held by the Apex Court in the case of S.K. Kapoor (supra) if the authorities consult the UPSC and relied upon its report for taking disciplinary action then copy of report must be supplied in advance to employee concerned otherwise it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
21. In the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the well settled legal position, we are of the considered view that this is a case of no evidence. While the inquiry officer has himself held that there was no evidence to support the charges leveled against the applicant, its findings to the contrary in the conclusion of the report that charges have been partly proved is nothing but perverse. We also find that the disciplinary authoritys order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the disagreement note has not been tentative and the applicant was asked to make his representation against a decision which has already been arrived at by the disciplinary authority. Again, we find that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to call for the advise of the UPSC as the same is in violation of the Rule 14 (29) (a) of the rules as aforesaid. Further, the appellate authority has in its order relied upon the UPSC advise, a copy of which has not been supplied to the applicant before passing of its order which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
22. We, therefore, allow this OA and quash and set aside the Inquiry Report dated 20.3.2009, disagreement note of the disciplinary authority dated 29.6.2009, order of the disciplinary authority dated 3.5.2010 and order of the appellate authority dated 17.3.2011. Consequently, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in compliance of the aforesaid order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ravi/