Chattisgarh High Court
Manish Pradhan vs Union Of India on 18 January, 2023
Author: Sanjay Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay Agrawal
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P (S).No. 5780 of 2018
Order reserved on 03.11.2022
Order Pronounced on 18.01.2023
•Manish Pradhan S/o Shri Radheshyam Pradhan Aged About 47
Years Ex- Sub Divisional Inspector, Post Jagdalpur At Present
Qua. No. 705/706, Donde Khurd, Housing Board Colony Post
Office- Mandhar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 493111,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Postal Board, Department
Of Post, New Delhi. Pin 110001, District : New Delhi, Delhi
2. Chief Post Master General (Appellate Authority) Office Of Chief
Post Master General, Chhattisgarh, Circle Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Pin 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Director Postal Services Department Of Post, Office Of Chief
Post Master General Chhattisgarh, Circle, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Pin 492009., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Senior Superintendent Office Of Superintendent, Postal Division,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 492009., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner :Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
For Respondents :Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy
Solicitor General
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
C.A.V. Order / Judgment
Per Sanjay Agrawal, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 203/00387/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal, while rejecting the said Application, has confirmed 2 the order passed by the appellate authority enhancing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service to that of this removal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sorting Assistant in Railway Mail Service, Raipur Division, Raipur on 18.07.1992 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Inspector (Posts) on 31.03.2001 and, in due course of time, he was posted at Raipur on 30.07.2002 and while working as Manager (SPCC), Raipur Headquarters, he was suspended on 30.07.2002. It has been alleged against him that while working as such, he misappropriated the Government fund as under :-
(a) He got Rs.1200/- from MATS University, Raipur on 26.05.2004 but has deposited Rs.12/- only in Raipur Head Office vide ACG 67 No.81 Book No.1678. He, thus, mis appropriated Government fund of Rs.1188/- in business post /BNPL.
(b) He got Rs.9800/- from Chandrabhushan Sahu, Lab.
Assistant, MATS University, Raipur on various dates, but has deposited Rs.98/- only (Rs.19/- on 15.05.2004 and Rs.44/- on 18.05.2004) in Raipur Head Office vide ACG 67 No.36,40 & 47 book No. 1678 respectively. He, thus, misappropriated Government fund of Rs.9702/- in business post/BNPL.
(c) He got Rs.1590/- on various dates from Chhattisgarh Sanwad, Raipur but has issued receipt in ordinary paper to it with seal of Manager, Speed Post Centre, Raipur along with his initial and did not deposit the same in Post Office account.
3. During his suspension period, a charge-sheet was served upon him on 07.07.2006 issued by the Senior Superintendent (Post), Raipur Division, Raipur with regard to the violation of Rules 4 (1) and 103 of 3 the Posts and Telegraph Financial Handbook, Part-I as he failed to maintain the dignity and duty under Rules 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1) (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 11.07.2006 (Annexure P/5) denying all the charges levelled against him. A departmental enquiry was proposed to be constituted under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) while appointing enquiry officer, who in turn, after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P/11) to the disciplinary authority wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved partially. The disciplinary authority had, however, not agreed with the said findings, and therefore, directed the petitioner vide its memo dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure P/12) to submit his explanation. In response to it, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.12.2013 (Annexure P/13) while pointing out the illegality committed by the enquiry officer and also pointed out that some of the important witnesses, based upon which, the alleged charge-sheet was issued, were not examined, and therefore, the alleged charges cannot be held to be proved.
4. After considering the aforesaid explanation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure P/2) imposed the punishment while compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service with immediate effect in exercise of the powers provided under Rule 12 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and, when the appeal preferred against it, before the Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle, 4 Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) on 14.03.2014 (Annexure P/14), was not decided even after passing of considerable period, an application being Original Application No. 203/00109/15 was filed before the Tribunal, who in turn, vide its order dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure P/15), while disposing of the same, has directed the appellate authority to decide the same within a period of 90 days from the communication of the said order.
5. After the issuance of the aforesaid direction, the appellate authority has issued a show-cause notice (Annexure P/17) to the petitioner on 12.03.2015 asking him as to why the penalty of compulsorily retirement from service be not enhanced to the penalty of removal from service. In response to it, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 27.03.2015 (Annexure P/18), but the appellate authority vide order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P/3) has enhanced the punishment of the petitioner and his compulsorily retirement from service has been enhanced to that of his removal from service and, which has been affirmed further by the Tribunal vide its order impugned dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P/1). Being aggrieved with that, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire charge was framed on the basis of the complaint lodged by P.V.Raju, Chandrabhushan Sahu and Ram Patwa, who had not appeared during the course of enquiry and the enquiry officer, while recording the findings on the allegations levelled against the petitioner, has also categorically held that the presenting officer has failed to 5 examine those important witnesses, yet the enquiry officer vide his report dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P/11), has held that the alleged charges are proved partially. It is contended further that the preliminary statements, which were recorded prior to initiation of the departmental enquiry, were illegally taken into consideration while punishing the petitioner as such. It is contended further that the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority holding that the alleged receipts were manipulated by the petitioner even in absence of the examination of hand-writing expert is apparently contrary to law. While inviting attention to the observation made by the Tribunal in the order dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure P/15), whereby the Tribunal had directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority within a period of 90 days, but the appellate authority, while adopting an unusual mode, has issued a show-cause notice dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure P/17) proposing for enhancement of the punishment as awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and thereby erred in enhancing his punishment vide order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P/3). It is, therefore, contended that the Tribunal, even without applying its mind and in a cursory manner, has committed a gross illegality in affirming the same vide its order impugned dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P/1). In support, reliance has been placed upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. and another and Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (1999) 8 SCC 582, (2006) 9 SCC 440 and (2021) 2 SCC 612, respectively.
6
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order impugned as passed by the Tribunal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.
9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the charges as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs were levelled against the petitioner on 07.07.2006 by the Senior Superintendent (Post), Raipur Division, Raipur and, the petitioner has submitted his reply to it on 11.07.2006 (Annexure P/5) denying all the allegations levelled against him. A departmental enquiry was, therefore, instituted and the enquiry officer vide his report dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P/11) observed that in order to establish the alleged charges, the presenting officer has failed to produce the important witnesses, namely, P.V.Raju, Chandrabhushan Sahu and Ram Patwa for their examination and/or cross-examination. The observation so made by the enquiry officer to this effect is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under :-
fu"d"kZ & izLrrdrkZ vf/kdkjh )kjk izLrqr xokgksa ,oa nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij ,oa vkjksfir deZpkjh }kjk le; le; ij fd, izfr ijh{k.kksa ,oa izLrqr czhQ dk eSus lw{erk ls v/;;u fd;k gSA vkjksi i= esa nks vkjksi yxk, x, gSA vuqPNsn 1 ,oa vuqPNsn 2 ftl laca/k esa miyC/k nLRkkostksa dk lw{erk ls v/;;u djus ds i'pkr~ esa fuEu fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk gWw %& d½ vuqPNsn & I vuqPNsn 1 ewy :i ls Jh ih Ogh jktw ] pUnaHkw"k.k lkgw ds c;ku ,oa ,lhth 67 dh 4 ewy ,oa Nk;k izfr;ksa ¼ih 1 ls ih 10 rd½ ij fVdk gSA tkap dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku Jh Fkku flag lgk [ktkaph jk;iqj gs-vk- ds ijh{k.k ,oa fyLVsV MkdwesaV ,lhth 67 dh 4 ewy ,oa 4 Nk;k izfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vkjksiksa dh iqf"V gksrh gSA ysfdu Jh ih Ogh jktw ,oa Jh panz Hkw"k.k lkgw dks ijh{k.k gsrq tkap cSBd esa mifLFkr djusa esa izLRkqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh foQy jgs A jftLVMZ uksfVl ,oa dksVZ ds }kjk Hksts i= ls ;g tkudkjh feyh fd miyC/k irk esa mDRk nksuks O;fDRk ugh jgrs blls 7 Jh ih-Ogh jktw ,oa panzHkw"k.k lkgw fn;s c;kuksa dh iwf"V ugh gks ikbZ vkSj u gh mDr nksuks xokgksa dk ijh{k.k tkap dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku fd;k tk ldkA vr% eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqpkW gwW fd vuqPNsn 1 ij yxk, x, vkjksi va'kr% gh fl/n gksrs gSA [k½ vuqPNsn & II vuqPNsn 2 ewyr% Jh jke iVok ds i=] vkjksfir deZpkjh Jh euh"k iz/kku }kjk tkjh fofHkUu jlhnsa vkjksfir deZpkjh Jh euh"k iz/kku }kjk nh xbZ gLRkfyih ,oa ljdkjh ijh{kd dh vksihfu;u@fjiksZV ij vk/kkfjr gSA ih 11 ls ih 17 rd mijksDRk fyLVsV MkdwqesaV ds vk/kkj ij vkjksfir deZpkjh ij yxk, vkjksikas dh iqf"V gksrh gSA ysfdu Jh jke iVok dks ijh{k.k gsrq tkap cSBd esa mifLFkr djus esa izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh foQy jgs A dksVZ ds }kjk Hksts uksfVl dh Hkh rkfey ugh gks ikbZ A blls Jhjke iVok }kjk fy[kh ckrksa dh iqf"V ugh gks ikbZ vkSj u gh Jh jke iVok dk ijh{k.k tkap dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku fd;k tk ldkA vr% eS bl fu"d"k ij igqpkW gwa fd vuqPNsn II ij yxk, x, vkjksi va'kr% gh fl/n gksrs gSA lgh@& fnukWd 13-05-2013 ds ds lksuh tkap vf/kdkjh ,oa fMIVh iksLV ekLVj 1 iz/kku Mkd?kj jk;iqj 492001
10. In spite of the non-examination of the said witnesses, it has been observed by the enquiry officer that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved partially. The said finding, thus, appears to be based upon no cogent and reliable evidence available on record.
Therefore, in absence of the examination of those material witnesses, the allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be held to be proved. The observation to this effect is fortified by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), wherein it has been held at paragraph 3 as under :-
"3. Before us the sole ground urged is as to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant, Shri Virender Singh, and the witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the grievance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons has prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and 8 to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied by the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non-examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant."
11. Be that as it may, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the said finding of the enquiry officer vide its memo dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure P/12) and the petitioner was accordingly directed to submit his explanation. In response to it, the petitioner has submitted his reply (Annexure P/13) on 02.12.2013 while pointing out the illegality committed by the enquiry officer and also pointed out that since the important witnesses have not been examined, the charges so framed, therefore, cannot be held to be proved. It, however, appears that the disciplinary authority without considering the said reply in its proper manner and even without taking note of the non-examination of the said witnesses has imposed the punishment upon the petitioner vide its order dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure P/2) while compulsorily retiring him from service with immediate effect under Rule 12 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The observation so made by the disciplinary authority while arriving at such a conclusion, reads as under :-
"I have carefully examined all the relevant documents connected to the charge and it is observed that the charged official had prepared the receipts mentioned as P-12 to P-16 in plain paper with his signature and office designation seal of Manager, Business Office Raipur and handed over the same to the customer after getting Rs.1590/- from him. In his opinion given by Dy. Govt. Examiner of Questioned documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, 9 30-Gorachand Road, Kolkata it is clearly mentioned that the said receipts which are marked as Q-10 to Q-13 are written by the charged official only, hence it is clear that the charged official had issued the receipts in plain paper (P-12 to P-16) with malafide intention and misappropriated the government money of Rs.1590/- which is proved beyond doubt. The pleading of the charged official that the writing expert has not attended the inquiry process is not acceptable as there is no need for the expert to attend each and every inquiry process and the opinion given by him is more important than the personal attendance. The expert opinion given by the government examiner has formed the part of the documentary evidence during the inquiry process. The other plea of the charged official that there is no witness about the articles being processed in the Business Post Centre is not connected to the charge as the main charge against the charged official is that he collected the amounts from the third party and not accounted for the amount so collected by him in the government accounts and misappropriated the same.
Thus both the charges against Shri Manish Pradhan, charged official are proved beyond doubt and stands as established as discussed above. The malafide intention of the charged official is proved in both the charges. The charges against him are grave in nature and manipulation of the records on his part clearly shows the criminal attitude of the official. As an inspecting officer, he is expected to maintain high degree of integrity by setting example to others working under him. Moreover as a government servant the charged official is expected to have high standards of morale and integrity and promptly account for the money collected from the public during the course of discharge of his duties. Instead of doing so, the charged official had indulged in corrupt practices and more seriously by manipulating the records. Thus both the charges against the charged official are serious in nature and warrant for severe punishment against him. His further continuance in the department will definitely tarnish the image of the department and encourage others also to follow the same for their own benefit."
12. It is to be seen at this juncture that the disciplinary authority, without any basis and in absence of any material evidence available on record with regard to the manipulation of the alleged receipts, has held that the petitioner has manipulated the same merely on the basis of presumption, as neither the hand-writing expert, namely, Narendra 10 Kumar was examined before the departmental enquiry nor was there any specific finding in his report dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure P/11) pertaining to the manipulation of the alleged receipts by the petitioner. Yet the petitioner has been retired compulsorily by the disciplinary authority from his service vide its said order dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure P/2).
13. It is to be seen further that as per the said report (Annexure P/11) submitted by the enquiry officer on 13.05.2013, the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved partially but the disciplinary authority, however, did not concur with the same and held that both the charges are found to be proved beyond doubt based upon the documentary evidence. It is, however, to be noted at this juncture that while disagreeing with the said report of the enquiry officer and before recording such a finding, a notice was to be issued to the petitioner and would call upon him for his explanation in the first instance before recording the said finding as it is settled principles of law that on receiving the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the same, but in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for its disagreement and only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings, if the evidence available on record is sufficient for such exercise in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD. ITI Ltd. and another (supra), wherein it has been observed at paragraphs 10 and 13 as under :-
11
"10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court that in case the disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the inquiry officer, he is bound to give a notice setting out his tentative conclusions to the appellant. It is only after hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
13. ........ 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. ..................."
14. Similar is the view taken by the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava (supra), wherein it has been held at paragraph 33, which reads as under :-
"33. The submission which was made in regard to the note of disagreement not being served upon the respondent delinquent as to Charge 1 is concerned, this Court does find substance to hold that the disciplinary authority on receiving the report of enquiry, if was not in agreement with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, was under an obligation to record its reasons of disagreement and call upon the delinquent for his explanation in the first place before recording his finding of guilt and undisputedly the procedure as prescribed by law was not followed and that has caused prejudice to the respondent and indeed it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. We are of considered view that so far as the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority in reference to Charge 1 is concerned, that could not be held to be justified in holding him guilty."
15. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the findings of guilt as recorded by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure P/2) imposing the punishment 12 while compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law.
16. It is now to be seen further that being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had questioned the same before the appellate authority on 14.03.2014 (Annexure P/14) and, when it was not decided despite passing of the considerable period of 11 months, he (petitioner) was, therefore, constrained to file the application before the Tribunal, who in turn, vide its order dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure P/15), while disposing of the said application, directed the said appellate authority to decide the appeal within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of the said order. Surprising enough to observe here that upon receiving the said direction contained in the said order dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure P/15), the appellate authority even without mentioning and/or disclosing the said order dated 11.02.2015 has acted in an unusual manner by issuing a show-cause notice dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure P/17) to the petitioner calling upon his explanation as to why the punishment of his compulsorily retirement be not enhanced to that of his removal from service and, thereafter, vide its order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P/3) has enhanced the punishment of the petitioner so awarded by the disciplinary authority to that of his removal from service based upon the said notice, while observing as under :-
"It is correct that GEQD has not given any opinion on overwriting on ACG-67 receipts (P-1 to P-4). This is because reference for the advise was not on this point. His submission that only on the basis of the statement of Shri Than Singh Sahu it is being concluded that he made the overwriting is not correct. Instead, the available evidence 13 discussed below establish that corrections were made by the appellant. On perusal of the statement of prosecution witness Shri P.V.Raju dated 22-06-2004 (PD-09), it is found that Rs.1200/- was given by Shri P.V.Raju to the appellant on 26-05-2004 for posting of about 200 articles and after some time receipt no. 81 (P-1) was given by him. The corrections have been made in the said ACG-67 receipt no.81 and amount of Rs.1200/- (Rs. Twelve hundred) is mentioned there in, whereas Rs.12/- (Rs.Twelve) is mentioned in the office copy of the receipt (P-5). Similarly, Shri Chandrabhushan Sahu (PD-10), has stated in his statement that amounts as mentioned in the receipt no.36 (Rs.1900/- P-2), no.40, (Rs.3500/- P-3) and no.47 (Rs.4400/- P-4) were given by him at Speed Post Centre Raipur and generally amounts were given to the appellant. But office copy of receipts (P-6 to P-8) have Rs.19/-, Rs.35/- and Rs.44/- respectively. Shri P.D.Babhre has confirmed statements of Shri P.V.Raju and Shri Chandrabhushan Sahu, which were recorded by him during the investigation. In this connection, Shri Than Singh Sahu has stated that aforesaid ACG-67 receipts were issued by him for Rs.19/-, Rs.35/-, Rs.44/- and Rs.12/- respectively and those were given by him to the appellant. As such, it is clear that ACG-67 receipts mentioned above were issued for smaller amounts and were given by Shri Than Singh Sahu to the appellant. After that, the receipts were corrected for higher amounts and the work for the corrected amounts were done at the Speed Post Centre Raipur. Thus, the appellant misappropriated Govt. money to the tune of Rs.10,890/-, as alleged. His submissions in respect of charge II that he had accepted his writing on P-12 to P- 16 is not correct. Instead, as per the DLI report dated 11 th May, 2005 his statement could not be obtained due to his non appearance despite giving instruction to him. Further, if he had accepted his writing on above documents, there was no necessity for referring them to GEQD for advice. Regarding these documents, it is observed that there is no provision for providing signed and stamped calculations to customers. In view of this and the letter provided by the customer (P-11), it is established that the appellant misappropriated Rs.1590/- as alleged.
In view of the gravity of the established charges, I find that the penalty of compulsory retirement is not adequate and needs revision.
Therefore, by virtue of powers conferred in me vide Rule-27 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary authority is hereby enhanced from the penalty of 'compulsory retirement' to the penalty of 'removal from service'."14
17. It is, however, to be noted at this juncture that the appellate authority at the most, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of his compulsorily retirement from service, as held by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 04.02.2014, may either dismiss his appeal or could allow and/or modify the same, but from the stretch of any imagination, it could not be enhanced as such by the appellate authority vide its order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P/3). The entire approach of the appellate authority, thus, appears to be highly unreasonable and cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law.
18. Absurdity as observed herein above does not come to an end here even when it was questioned before the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has proceeded a step further while treating the alleged show-cause notice dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure P/17) as it was the order passed by the appellate authority as reflected from para 8 of its judgment. It, thus, appears that the Tribunal even without examining the ground taken by the petitioner has just reproduced the contents made in the said so called notice (Annexure P/17) and passed the order impugned dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure P/1) while affirming the order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P/3) as passed by the appellate authority by enhancing the punishment of the petitioner from compulsorily retirement from service to that of his removal. The Tribunal has, therefore, just affirmed the same by way of its order impugned without any application of mind whatsoever, which is to say the least, is not desirable.
19. In view of the aforesaid background, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 31.07.2018 affirming the enhancement of punishment of the petitioner as awarded by the appellate authority is 15 hereby quashed and consequent upon, the order dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure P/2) as passed by the disciplinary authority is also hereby quashed. As a result, the period during which the petitioner remained out of employment from 06.04.2015 till date shall be counted for the purpose of service and the aforesaid period shall be treated as continuity in service. This period shall be counted for the purpose of granting all consequential benefits determining length of service as also for pensionary benefits.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Anjani