Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
V Sekar vs Department Of Education on 19 June, 2023
1
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00390/2021
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
V.Sekar,
S/o G.Vaikundam,
Aged about 60 years,
Retd. Assistant Section Officer,
Central School for Tibetan,
Kalimpong, West Bengal- 734316,
Now Residing at No 112/A, 1st Floor,
Bogadhi, Bogadi Mysore,
Mysure. KarnatakA-570026. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri K. Mahalingam)
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Ministry of Education,
Rep. by its Joint Secretary,
Room No 107, D Wing
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan(HQ)
No. 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg
Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi- 110016. ....Respondents
(By Shri N. Amaresh, Senior Panel Counsel)
2
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To quash the order F. No 53- 6/2018-CTSA (L & V) dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure A-1), vide which the following major penalty has been imposed upon the applicant:
"Shri V. Sekar, Assistant Section Officer (Assistant) presently posted at CST, Kalimpong and holding the post of Assistant Section Officer in the pay matrix level 6 on functional basis and presently placed in the higher pay matrix level 7 (on grant of MACP) on personal basis is reduced to the lower post and grade of Senior Secretariat Assistant (previously Upper Division Clerk) in pay matrix level 4 of 7 CPC with immediate effect, until he is found fit by the competent authority to be restored to the higher post & grade of pay of Assistant Section Officer (previously School Assistant). The Pay of Shri V. Sekar to be fixed accordingly as per the rules on imposition of the above penalty."
b) To quash the order F. No 53-6/2018- CTSA (L & V) dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure A-2), vide which his appeal filed against the order dated 12.12.2019, was rejected.
c) Pass such other order or directions as this Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant was appointed as LDC in the respondent office on 17.08.1987. He was subsequently promoted as UDC on 20.09.1993 and as School Assistant w.e.f., 25.05.2006. The applicant was working at Shimla as School Assistant.
b) The applicant's APAR (Annual Performance Appraisal Report) for the year 2016-17 was awarded 6 to 6.5 by the Principal, CST, Shimla. The same award was reviewed by the Education Officer and was downgraded to 4 to 5 without recording proper reason for down grading.
c) The applicant represented to the higher authority against his down grading of APAR (Annexure A-6). Applicant had sent advance copy of his representation dated 25.04.2018 to higher authority. The respondents were annoyed and asked the applicant to join the duty immediately, when the applicant was on leave. The applicant left Mysore immediately and joined the duty at Shimla on 18.05.2018.
d) The applicant was served a show cause notice on 18.05.2018 by respondent No. 3 asking explanation, why the applicant sent advance copies to higher authorities, and the time to reply was given as one day. Before the applicant could reply to the show cause notice, the respondent No. 3, issued a suspension order on the same day of show cause notice dated 18.05.2018.
4
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) The applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (Circuit Bench at Shimla) in OA No. 063/01248/2018 for revocation of suspension. The Chandigarh Bench vide its order dated 10.01.2019 directed the respondents to revoke the suspension order beyond 90 days i.e., 15.08.2018 by quashing the extension of suspension order dated 10.8.2018 and directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant in the service w.e.f. 16.8.2018.
f) The applicant was charged for misconduct on 26.11.2018 under Rule 53 (18) of CTSA Disciplinary Rules 2004 r/w CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules of 1965. The gist of Article of charges were as follows:
Article-I: He submitted a representation dated 25.04.2018 addressed to the Joint Secretary (SE.II) & Chairman, CTSA, Room.No. 103- D Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dept. of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi, relating to his so called service grievances, without submitting his representation to the Junior Officers/Director CTSA and without giving chance and opportunity to the Junior Officers in CTSA to consider and dispose of his service related grievances mentioned in the said representation dated 25.04.2018.
Article-II: He submitted copies of his representation dated 25.4.2018 addressed to the Joint Secretary (SE.II) & Chairman, CTSA, Room No. 103- D Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dept. of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi by criticizing and challenging the decisions of the Govt. 5
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench of India Ministry of HRD, regarding non transfer/delay in transfer of CTSA Schools to the DOE Dharamshala and falsely linking this issue with the General Lok Sabha Elections to be held in India, 2019. Sh. V.Sekar in the said representation dated 25.04.2018, even challenged the administrative policies of the management by levelling false allegations against the management that CTSA would fill up 5 posts of Grade-I Principals on deputation basis in a hurry, despite poor student strength in CTSA Schools.
Article-III: He wrote unwarranted and objectionable remarks on 05.04.2018 on the margins of his original APAR for the year 2016- 17 over and above the remarks of the Reporting Officer dated 28.07.2017 and the remarks of the Reviewing Officer, when the APAR for the year 2016-17 was shown to him, rather than submitting his representation separately to the competent authority after seeing the remarks of the Reporting officer and Reviewing officer in the said APAR for the year 2016-2017.
Article-IV: He harassed Smt. Chandana Bania, Post Graduate Teacher (English), Central School for Tibetans, Shimla in many ways with biased attitude, from time to time, firstly by writing negative note on the leave application dated 21.09.2016 of Smt. Chandana Banla for sanction of 19 days Half Pay Leave from 21.09.2016 to 19.10.2016 on medical ground, and, thereafter, when the leave sanctioning authority i.e. the Principal, CST, Shimla sanctioned the above leave period in respect of the said teacher vide 6 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench order No. A-6/CSTS/2013-1841 dated 26.09.2016 after satisfying the genuine reason for the leave supported with the documents, the said Shri V. Sekar due to the personal grudges against Smt. Chandana Bania, wrote a complaint letter 25.4.2018 addressed to the Joint Secretary (SE.II) & Chairman, CTSA with copies to the higher authorities including external audit authorities, wherein besides his so called personal service related grievances, Shri V. Sekar also levelled serious allegations against the senior officers of CTSA for extending undue favour to Smt. Chandana Bania for grant of 377 days leave on medical grounds, despite his objections to treat the entire period of absence of Smt. Chandana Bania as "dies non"
treating the period as wilful unauthorised absence from duty. This letter dated 25.04.2018 levelling various allegations has been submitted to various authorities without submitting it to the Junior Officers/Director CTSA and without giving chance and opportunity to the Junior Officers in CTSA to consider and dispose of his service related grievances and other issues mentioned in the said representation dated 25.04.2018.
By his above acts, Shri V. Sekar has committed grave misconducts and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of CTSA by violating the provisions of rule 40 of CTSA Conduct Rules, 2004 and Rule 3 (1)(III) of CCS (Conduct Rules) 1964.
g) Subsequent to the issuance of charge sheet, the charges against the applicant were enquired into by Dr. U.N. Singh, who was appointed as 7 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench Inquiry Officer in this case. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry proceedings and submitted his report on 16.5.2019. This report was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla vide orders dated 21.5.2019 in CWP No.437/2019. A fresh inquiry was conducted by the same Inquiry Officer as per the provisions of the CTSA Disciplinary Rules, 2004. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the fresh inquiry submitted the Inquiry Report vide his letter dated 16.7.2019 to the Disciplinary Authority with the findings that all the four Article of charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 26.11.2018 have been proved against the applicant. A copy of the Inquiry Report was provided to the applicant vide letter dated 30.8.2019, for making his written submissions, if any, on the Inquiry Report.
h) The applicant submitted his written submissions vide his letter dated 14.9.2019 to the Disciplinary Authority, against the Inquiry Report.
The Director, CTSA and Disciplinary Authority considered the submissions made by the applicant in his representation dated 14.9.2019 vis-a-vis the documents of the case, proceedings of the inquiry, Inquiry Report and came to the conclusion that the ends of justice would be met if penalty of 'Reduction to lower time scale of post and pay' is imposed upon the applicant. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction on the applicant from pay matric level 7 to pay matric level 4 with immediate effect, until he is found fit by the competent authority to be restored to 8 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench the higher post and grade of pay of Assistant Section Officer (previously School Assistant).
i) The applicant challenged this order in CAT, Chandigarh Bench (Shimla) in OA.No.198/2020, which was disposed of vide orders dated 28.2.2020 with the following directions:
"Be that as it may, learned counsel for the applicant seeks and is allowed permission to withdraw this O.A with liberty to the Applicant to file an Appeal against the impugned order, Annexure A-l, to the competent authority along with application for condonation of delay within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If such an appeal with condonation application is filed, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same on merit, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of appeal/application"
j) The applicant made an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 12.12.2019. After considering the appeal, the Appellate Authority did not find any basis for differing from the finding of the Disciplinary Authority in imposing the penalty of reduction of post and pay. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected on 26.03.2021.
k) The applicant has stated that he has not committed any grave misconduct which could warrant imposition of a major penalty. To 9 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench attract major penalties, there should be a grave misconduct which is specifically mentioned in the Rule Book, such as:
i. Possession of disproportionate assets.
ii. Obtaining or attempting to obtain illegal
Gratifications.
iii. Misappropriation of Government properties, Money or Store.
iv. Obtaining or attempting to obtain any valuable things or pecuniary advantage without consideration or for consideration which is not adequate.
v. Falsification of Government record.
vi. Gross irregularities or Negligent in discharge of
official duties with dishonest motive.
vii. Misuse of official position or power for personal gain. viii. Disclosure of secret or confidential information even though it does fall strictly within the scope of official secret act, ix. False claim of Government - like TA Claims, reimbursement etc., 10 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
l) The applicant had only represented his grievance to the higher authorities. This cannot amount to Grave Misconduct under the service rules.
m) He further contended that the respondents failed to mention under which rule of CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules the applicant has been punished. The CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules of 1965 are applicable to all the Central Government Employees. The respondents invoked the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules of 1965 for imposing major penalties.
The Rule 14 CCS (CCA) mentions the ingredients of Grave Misconduct for which an employee can be punished under Rule 14. The applicant has not committed any grave misconduct for the charges which could attract Rule 14 for Major Penalties.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The applicant is very habitual to fabricating hazy facts and cloudy sights to meet his goals of greed. The actual fact is that, when the APAR for the year 2016-17 was shown to the applicant, he wrote unwarranted and objectionable remarks on 05.04.2018 on the margins of his original APAR and also wrote the remarks over and above the remarks of the Reporting Officer dated 28.07.2017 and the remarks of the Reviewing Officer. The applicant rather than following proper rules and laid down procedures for submitting his representation separately to the competent authority, had directly represented his grievances to the following:11
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
1. Joint Secretary (SE.II) & Chairman, CTSA, Room No. 103 -
D Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dept. of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.
2. The Cabinet Secretary Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, MHRD, Room No. 124 C Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, PG And Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
5. The Controller of Auditor General of India, Pocket 9, Deendayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi-110124.
b) The applicant never gave any chance to his immediate controlling authorities of CTSA to consider and dispose of his service related grievances mentioned in the said representation dated 25.04.2018. Thus, the applicant violated the instructions contained in DOPT OM No. 118/52-Estt. dated 30.04.1952 of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
c) Accordingly, charge memorandum no.56-6/2018-CTSA(L&V) dated 26.11.2018 was issued containing the four articles of charges. The applicant denied all the charges levelled against him vide his written 12 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench statement of defence dated 11.12.2018. The submissions made by the applicant in his written statement were considered by the Disciplinary Authority and not found tenable. It was decided by the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the regular inquiry as per the provisions of Rule 53(18) of CTSA Disciplinary Rules, 2004. It was considered necessary by the Disciplinary Authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges levelled against the applicant. Dr. U.N Singh, Retired Additional Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan was appointed as Inquiry Officer (IO) vide order No. F 53-6/2018-CTSA (L&V) dated 05.01.2019.
d) The Inquiry Officer, after completing the inquiry proceedings, submitted his report dated 16.05.2019, which was set aside on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla vide orders dated 21.05.2019 in CWP No. 437/2019. A fresh inquiry was conducted by the same Inquiry Officer as per the provisions of the CTSA Disciplinary Rules, 2004. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting the fresh inquiry, submitted his inquiry report vide letter dated 16.07.2019 to Disciplinary Authority with the findings that all the four Articles of charges have been proved against the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy of the said inquiry report to the applicant vide letter dated 30.08.2019, thereby asking him to submit his written representation/submissions, if any, on the inquiry report within 15 days.
13
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) The Applicant submitted his written representation/ submissions vide his letter dated 14.09.2019 to the Disciplinary Authority of CTSA i.e., Director, CTSA, against the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer for consideration with the prayer to drop the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 26.11.2018. The Director, CTSA and Disciplinary Authority considered the submissions made by the applicant in his representation dated 14.09.2019 vis-a-vis the documents of the case, proceedings of the inquiry, inquiry report and also the evidences adduced during the inquiry and came to the conclusion that the ends of justice would be met if penalty of 'Reduction to lower time scale of post and pay' is imposed upon the applicant.
f) Accordingly, the following penalty was imposed upon the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority i.e the Director, CTSA vide order no. 53- 6/2018-CTSA (L&V) dated 12.12.2019.
"Shri V.Sekar, Assistant Section Officer (Assistant) presently posted at CST, Kalimpong and holding the post of Assistant Section Officer in the pay matrix level 6 on functional basis and presently placed in the higher pay matrix level 7 (on grant of MACP) on personal basis is reduced to the lower post and grade of Senior Secretariat Assistant (previously Upper Division Clerk) in pay matrix level 4 of 7 CPC with immediate effect, until he is found fit by the competent authority to be restored to the higher post & grade of pay of Assistant Section Officer (previously School Assistant). The Pay of 14 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench Shri V.Sekar to be fixed accordingly as per the rules on imposition of the above penalty,"
g) Subsequently, the applicant made an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 12.12.2019, wherein the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a major penalty upon the applicant and reduced his post and grade to Senior Secretariat Assistant from the post of Assistant Section Officer,
h) The Appellate Authority after going through the appeal carefully, it also perused the available records of the Inquiry Proceedings, the order passed by the then Disciplinary Authority dated 12.12.2019. The Appellate Authority also carefully perused the orders from time to time passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (Circuit Sitting Bench at Shimla), the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and again by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh (Circuit Sitting Bench at Shimla).
i) The Appellate Authority found no reason in the appeal to quash the order of penalty issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 12.12.2019. Therefore, the applicant was not exonerated from the charges levelled against him and accordingly the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority by upholding penalty of the Disciplinary Authority.
j) There is no dispute on the applicability of the rules upon the applicant.
The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in its order dated 22.08.2019 delivered in CWP No. 437 of 2019-D titled Central Tibetan 15 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench Schools Administration & another Vs. V Sekar & another, held in para 4 as under:
"4. Though there is no indication, in the original order of suspension or in the order passed on 10.08.2018, as to the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, in short the CCS (CCA) Rules, there is a clue in the charge memo, issued to the 1st respondent herein on 26.11.2018, as to the applicability of these Rules. The charge-memo issued on 26.11.2018, invites reference to the CTSA Disciplinary Rules, 2004, as well as to the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, there is no dispute about the fact that the CCS (CCA) Rules, to the extent admissible, are also applicable to the cases of the employees working in the petitioners' Administration."
k) It is clarified that the alleged ingredients for major penalty under Rule 14 CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 are only illustrative and not exhaustive (Annexure R-6A). It is further reiterated that the charge sheet had been issued to the applicant after deliberation on the gravity of his misconduct. The action was taken by the Disciplinary Authority on merits of the case and proven charges of misconduct in Inquiry. Major penalty under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by following the Rule, 14,15,16, and 17 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and also in compliance of Government of India's decisions and guidelines issued from time to time. 16
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
4. The applicant filed a rejoinder to the reply, wherein the applicant pleaded as follows:
a) The applicant had not committed any of the listed misconduct for which the respondent invoked disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 for major penalty. The applicant had only represented to the higher authorities through proper channel. The applicant never violated the DOPT order also, since the applicant sent the grievances which are well known to the respondent.
b) The applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 18.5.2018 by the respondent seeking explanation as to why the applicant sent advance copies of service grievances to the higher authorities. The show cause notice only gave a day's time to submit his explanation. On the same day (on 18.5.2018) the suspension order was signed by the officer.
c) The respondents, without adopting proper guidelines for the disciplinary proceedings, punished the applicant for the only reason that he had sent advanced copies of service grievance to the higher officers.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
6. In the present case, the applicant has stated that although the charges against him were not grave enough to attract major penalty proceedings, he has been awarded a major penalty of reduction of post and reduction in pay from 17 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench Level 7 to Level 4, until he is found fit by the competent authority to be restored to the higher post and grade of pay of Assistant Section Officer.
7. The first two charges made out against the applicant relate to the fact that the applicant made a detailed representation dated 25.4.2018 addressed to the higher authorities directly without giving any chance to the concerned officer in CTSA, to consider and dispose of the service grievances mentioned in the representation.
8. A perusal of the representation made by the applicant in his letter dated 25.4.2018 indicates that the letter is addressed to Joint Secretary/ Chairman CTSA (Through proper channel), with copies of the same being marked to higher authorities, such as Cabinet Secretary, Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Secretary, DOPT, CAG, etc.
9. The service grievance mentioned in the representation, relates to downgrading of his APAR for the year 2016-17, where the Reviewing officer has downgraded his assessment from around 6 to around 5, without assigning any reason. However, the applicant should have formally represented against this down gradation in his APAR, in case he had a grievance. He, however apparently made entries on the original APAR form, which was shown to him, and noted on the margins of the APAR form, in his own hand, about entries/non-entries made by the concerned Reviewing officer in his APAR. This is the gist of the third charge made out against the applicant.
18
OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
10. Besides this service grievance, the applicant also raised unconnected matters relating to Policy Matters, such as transfer of CTSA Schools to DOE, filling up of 5 post of Principal Grade-I on deputation basis, etc., which did not have any direct relation to his service grievances relating to downgrading of his APAR.
11. In his letter, he also raised certain issues relating to alleged grant of undue favors to a lady teacher, Smt. Chandana Bania. This became the subject matter of the fourth Article of the charge made out against him.
12. It is apparent from the records that the charges made out against the applicant have been found to be proved. After due consideration, the Disciplinary authority (Director Central Tibetan Schools Administration) has imposed a major penalty of reduction to a post and grade from Level 7 to Level 4 of 7th CPC. The period for which this penalty is being imposed has not been clearly specified. It has been mentioned that the penalty shall be in force till he is found fit by the competent authority to be restored to the higher post and grade of pay.
13. Since, no specific period has been mentioned, the penalty of reduction of his post and grade will be presumed to be in force indefinitely at the pleasure of the Competent Authority. This major penalty has been imposed on him on 12.12.2019. The order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority (Chairperson Central Tibetan Schools Authority) on 26.3.2021. The applicant has superannuated on 30.6.2021. Consequently, the major penalty imposed on the applicant for an indefinite period, involves not only a loss 19 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench of pay and reduction of his pay grade from Level 7 to Level 4, but it also has a major impact on his pensionary benefits and entitlements.
14. The applicant had worked for about 34 years with the respondent. Keeping in view the charges proved against the applicant and the fact that this penalty has been imposed on him at the fag end of his career, the penalty imposed in this case appears to be unduly harsh and not commensurate with the nature and degree of his misdemeanors, as indicated by the charges framed against him.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. KG Sony (2006 SCC (L & S) 1568), had observed as follows:
"The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's 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 what has been stated in the Wednesbury's case (supra) 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.
To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal 20 OA.No.170/390/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed."
16. In this case, the punishment imposed on the applicant appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges made out against him. It would therefore be appropriate for the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed upon him.
17. Keeping the above in view, the order of imposition of penalty dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure A-1) and orders of the Appellate Authority dated 26.3.2021 confirming the penalty (Annexure A-2) are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Respondent No.2) to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed on the applicant.
18. The compliance shall be made in an expedite manner in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
19. The OA stands disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr