Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunil Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 12 September, 2016
1 OA No.3300/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
OA No. 3300/2013
Reserved On:01.09.2016
Pronounced on:12/09/2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice, M. S. Sullar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Sunil Kumar
Ex. Ct. of Delhi Police
PIS No. 28912028
Aged about 42 Years
S/o Shri Prakash Singh
R/o VPO: Baroth Patti Mahar,
Badli Road, Distt: Bagpat, U.P. ..........Applicant
(Argued by: Shri Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Addl. C.P. (Traffic)
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. D.C.P./ Traffic (CR)
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
4. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi (DANIPS)
Then D.C.P. / Traffic (CR)
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, IP Estate,
New Delhi. ............Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Anand)
ORDER
Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J) Ex.Ct. Sunil Kumar of Delhi Police, has preferred the instant Original Application (OA), challenging the impugned 2 OA No.3300/2013 order dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure A-1), enquiry report dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure A-2), order dated 05.03.2012 (Annexure A-3) of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) and order dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure A-4) of the Appellate Authority (AA).
2. The pith and substance of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant OA, and emanating from the record, is that, applicant, while posted as Constable in Parliament Street Traffic Circle, New Delhi, did not report for duty and was marked absent, vide DD No.23 dated 02.10.2009. Four (4) absentee notices were issued to him, but he failed to resume his duty despite their receipts. He remained continuously absent for two (2) years, five (5) days & 8 eight (8) hours from 02.10.2009 to 08.10.2010 at the first instance, and from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 for a period of six (6) days, two (2) hours & fifty (50) minutes at subsequent occasion. Thus, he was stated to have committed a grave misconduct, during the course of his employment.
3. As a consequence thereof, a regular Departmental Enquiry (DE), was initiated against the applicant under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 [hereinafter to be referred as "D.P. Rules"] and Enquiry Officer (EO) was appointed, by way of impugned order dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure A-1), by the competent authority. The 3 OA No.3300/2013 EO, after recording the evidence of the parties, and following the due procedure of enquiry under the D.P. Rules, issued the following summary of allegation to him (applicant):-
"It is alleged against you, Constable Sunil Kumar No. 1056/T (PIS No. 28912028) while posted in Parliament Street Traffic Circle, you were detailed for crane duty from 8.00 am on 02.10.2009 but you did not report for duty and as such you were marked absent vide D.D. No. 23 dated 02.10.2009. Four Absentee Notices were issued to you vide office No. 7763/SIP-T (D-III) Dated 02.10.2010, No. 8300/SIP-T (D-III) Dated 29.10.2010, No. 9288/SIP-T (D-III) Dated 01.12.2010, No. 372/SIP-T (D- III) dated 10.01.2011 through SSP/Distt. Baghpath (U.P.) as well as registered post at your home address with the directions to resume your duty at once, failing which departmental action will (sic) be taken against you. It was also directed in case of illness, you will report to the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital for medical examination. You neither reported for duty till date nor sent any intimation about your unauthorized absentee and running absent continuously in contravention of CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 and S.O. No. 111. Besides, while you were (sic) posted in Vivek Vihar, Circle you had also remained absent from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 for a period of 6 days 2 hours and 50 minutes. The above act on the part of you, Constable Sunil Kumar No. 1056/T (PIS No. 28912028) amount to gross misconduct, negligence, disobedience of lawful directions unbecoming of a police officer and dereliction in the discharge of your official duties, which render you liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal 1980.
The D.E file was scrutinized and the summary of allegation, list of witnesses and list of documents were prepared and notice was sent to the delinquent (sic) at his home address with the request to attend the D.E proceeding against him on 26.09.2011 at 11:00 AM. Constable Sunil Kumar No. 1056/T (PIS No. 28912028) attended the D.E proceeding on scheduled date & time and summary of allegation, list of witness, list of documents relied upon the delinquent was served upon to him free of cost. Additional documents were given to him and the documents were read over with meaning to him".
4. Subsequently, the EO completed the enquiry, and came to a definite conclusion, that charges framed against the delinquent official (DO), duly stand substantiated, by means of impugned enquiry report dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure A-2).
5. Concurring with the findings of the EO, a penalty of dismissal was imposed on the applicant, vide impugned order dated 05.03.2012 (Annexure A-3) by the DA.
6. Similarly, the statutory appeal (Annexure A-5), filed by the applicant, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.03.2013 by the AA.
4 OA No.3300/2013
7. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has instituted the present OA, challenging the impugned DE proceedings and orders, invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
8. According to the applicant, the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and against the principles of natural justice. It was pleaded that EO, DA & AA have wrongly ignored and rejected the medical evidence of the applicant in violation of Circulars dated 23.07.1997 and 10.05.2004 (Annexure A-6). In fact, the applicant was seriously ill and was unable to attend his duty, for the reason beyond his control.
9. The case of the applicant, further proceeds that the respondents have failed to appreciate that in case, they had any doubt about the genuineness of the illness of the applicant, he should have been given an opportunity to produce the evidence of medical rest, so that he could have produced the doctors as Defence Witnesses (DWs). Hence, the applicant cannot be held guilty of the charges of absence from duty. The enquiry proceeding and impugned orders were stated to be vitiated, on the ground that the DA has relied upon extraneous charges like previous absence, while awarding the punishment to the applicant. There was no cogent evidence on record, to prove the charge against the applicant. The EO has not considered and appreciated the evidence of the parties on record, which has caused a great prejudice to his case. The penalty awarded to 5 OA No.3300/2013 the applicant, was also stated to be harsh and excessive. It was claimed that the authorities have ignored young age & length of service of the applicant and the fact that he is responsible to look after his wife, minor children and aged parents. The entire enquiry was stated to be against the settled principle of law.
10. Levelling a variety of allegations, and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the applicant claimed that the impugned DE proceedings and orders are vitiated, arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant sought quashment of the enquiry report, as well as impugned orders, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
11. The respondents refuted the claim of the applicant and filed their reply, wherein it has been pleaded as under:-
"The brief facts of the case are that a departmental enquiry was initiated vide order No. 11992-12010/HAP/T/D-I/CR dated 19.09.2011 against Ex-Const. Sunil Kumar 1056/T (PIS No. 28912028) on the allegations that while posted in Parliament Street Traffic Circle he was detailed for Crane duty from 08:00 AM on 02.10.2009, but he did not report for duty and as such he was marked absent vide DD No. 23 dated 02.10.2009. Four absentee notices were issued to him vide No.7763-66/SIP-T (D-III) dated 02.10.2010, 8300-03/SIP-T (D-III) dated 29.10.2010, 9289-91/SIP/T (D-III) dated 01.12.2010 and 372- 74/SIP/T (D-III) dated 10.01.2011 through SSP/Distt. Bagpat, UP as well as registered post at his home address with the direction to resume his duty at once failing which departmental action will be taken against him. It was also directed that in case of illness, he will report to the Medical Superintendent of the nearest Civil Hospital for medical examination. He neither reported for duty nor sent any intimation about his unauthorized absence. Besides, the constable while posted in Vivek Vihar Traffic Circle had also remained absent from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 for a period of 06 days, 02 hrs. and 50 minutes".
12. According to the respondents, the EO conducted the enquiry in accordance with law and came to the conclusion, that the charges served on the applicant stand duly proved. A copy of the EO's report was sent to be served upon the 6 OA No.3300/2013 applicant, vide UO letter dated 14.12.2011, but as the applicant continued to remain absent, the same was served upon him at his residence, against a valid receipt dated 02.02.2012. The applicant himself received the notice and enquiry report. He was asked to file his representation/reply to the show cause notice within a period of 15 days, but he neither resumed duty, nor submitted any representation against the findings of EO. Thereafter, he was directed to appear before the DA, in person on 22.02.2012 along with his representation, vide UO letter dated 15.02.2012. It was specifically directed that, in case applicant failed to appear in person or to submit his representation, the matter will be decided ex-parte. He himself received the copy of UO letter dated 15.02.2012 at his residence on 18.02.2012, but he did not bother to appear before DA.
13. The medical prescriptions depict, that he was suffering from different type of diseases, like backache and depression etc. The medical prescriptions were stated to be subsequently managed by the applicant, to create his defence, as the ailments mentioned therein, are not of serious nature. It was further averred, that as per previous record shown, applicant had himself absented on 75 different occasions and was repeatedly punished accordingly.
14. Thereafter, DA has carefully gone through the findings of EO, evidence on record and correctly dismissed the applicant from service, vide impugned order dated 05.03.2012 (Annexure 7 OA No.3300/2013 A-3). The matter was re-examined and his appeal was rightly rejected by the AA, by virtue of impugned order dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure A-4).
15. Virtually acknowledging the factual matrix and reiterating the validity of the impugned DE proceedings and orders, the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations and grounds contained in the OA and prayed for its dismissal. That is how we are seized of the matter.
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, we are of the firm view, that there is no merit in the instant OA.
17. Ex-facie, the main celebrated arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, that there is no material regarding wilful absence of the applicant on record, and since the medical prescriptions produced by him, were not considered by the relevant authorities, so the impugned enquiry report and orders are arbitrary and illegal, are not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well.
18. As is evident from the record, that very grave and serious allegations are assigned to the applicant that he remained wilful absent from 02.10.2009 to 08.10.2011 for a period of 2 years, 5 days & 8 hours at the first instance and from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 for 6 days, 2 hours and 50 minutes at subsequent occasion. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the applicant, examined PW-1 HC Ashok Kumar, 8 OA No.3300/2013 who, inter alia, proved the absentee notices and copy of relevant Roznamcha (exhibit PW-1/A). PW-2 HC Kuldeep Raj, brought on record the original Roznamcha (exhibit PW-2/A) & Chitha (exhibit PW-2/B) relating to DD No.23 dated 02.10.2009, which shows the absence of the applicant. Similarly, PW-3 HC Raj Kumar maintained, that he checked all the four (4) absentee notices in the relevant file issued by SIP Branch dated 02.10.2010 (exhibit PW-3/A), 29.10.2010 (exhibit PW-3/B), 01.12.2010 (exhibit PW-3/C) and 10.01.2011 (exhibit PW-3/D). The applicant did not cross-examine PW-3, despite adequate opportunity, whereas nothing substantial could be elicited in cross-examination of PW-1 & PW-2 to dislodge their testimony.
19. Although applicant has acknowledged his pointed period of absence and pressed into service the plea of his illness, which remained unsubstantiated. The applicant submitted his defence statement, wherein, he has stated, that his medical certificates were genuine, his absence was not wilful and unauthorized, but on account of his illness, as per medical treatment papers of CHC (Community Health Centre), Baraut (Baghpat), UP. He admitted that he received the absentee notices. However, the applicant has miserably failed to substantiate his defence statement, by producing any cogent evidence.
20. Thereafter, having analysed the evidence on record and medical prescriptions, the EO concluded as under, vide impugned enquiry report dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure A-2):-
"Four PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 as well as relevant record available on file, it is proved that Ct. Sunil Kumar No. 1056/T (PIS 28912028) (sic) remained 9 OA No.3300/2013 absent for 2 years 5 days & 8 hours from 02.10.2009 to 08.10.2010 since, he was marked absent vide D.D. No. 23 dated 02.10.2009 Parliament Traffic Circle and he resumed his duty vide No. 11 dated 08.10.2011 Parliament Traffic Circle. Also he remained absented himself from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 for a period of 6 days 2 hours and 50 minutes. However, he has taken pleas that he was seriously ill and he could not inform the competent authority. He also admitted in his defence statement that he received all the four absentee notices but failed to comply the directions of the senior officers. He submits his medical papers which shows that he was suffering from deferent types of diseases like FUC, Ac.Backache, Depression, Spondylosis (sic), Ac.Hepatitis etc. It is surprisingly that he submits the medical papers of his absent period from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 (6 days 2 hours 50 minutes) whereas (sic) he had resumed his duty on 18.06.2009 at Vivek Vihar Circle but he failed to submit such medical papers at that time. It shows that he managed all the medical papers only to save his skin. From the previous absentee record it is crystal clear that he is habitual absentee. He was enlisted in Delhi Police as Constable (Executive) in 1991, as per record he remained 75 times absent from duty and so far 7 years (2+5) approved services of Ct. Sunil Kumar No. 1056/T in has been forfeited. In view the above facts & circumstances as well as records on file the charge is substantiated against Ct. Sunil Kumar No. 1056/T (PIS 28912028) beyond any doubt D.E findings is submitted for kind perusal & further orders please".
21. Thus, it would be seen, that it stands proved on record that the applicant remained wilful absent for a long period of 2 years, 5 days & 8 hours and 6 days, 2 hours & 50 minutes in the manner depicted hereinabove. He neither informed the department, nor sent any intimation or medical record. Even he did not join his duty, despite the service of absentee notices. He has also admitted in his defence statement, that he received all the four (4) absentee notices, but he failed to comply with the direction of the senior officers. The previous record of the applicant would suggest, that he is a habitual absentee and remained absent on 75 different occasions, for which he was accordingly punished. Even the medical prescriptions, issued by the Community Health Centre, Baraut, Baghpat, UP, shows that he was suffering from backache and hyper-tension and not from any serious ailment confining him to bed.
22. Above all, it remained an unfolded mystery, that if a person can go to CHC, Baruat, Baghpat, UP for his treatment 10 OA No.3300/2013 of backache and hyper-tension then why he could not resume his duty or at least inform his superiors in that regard. The applicant has not produced even the medical prescriptions of the entire absence period. The applicant did not prefer to produce any doctor or other witness or medical certificate from the Civil Hospital to show that, in fact, he was seriously ill, confined to bed and was unwell to resume his duty. In this manner, applicant has tried to mislead the authorities by producing the medical prescriptions of part of his absence period. The authenticity of the medical prescriptions is very much doubtful, as he has not examined any doctor or any other person, from the concerned dispensary to prove the medical record, for the reasons best known to him. That means he has withheld the best possible evidence which could throw light on his illness or to prove that he remained confined to bed, for the reasons best known to him and thus legal adverse inference is inevitable against him in this regard.
23. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable in the Departmental Enquiry, as are applicable in criminal trials because proceeding in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of Disciplinary Authority may be many 11 OA No.3300/2013 such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
24. Therefore, the EO was required to decide the real controversy between the parties, on the Doctrine of preponderance of probability of evidence. One line here and there in cross-examination of witnesses, which is irrelevant and foreign to the crux of the charge, ipso facto, is not a sufficient ground to ignore the entire cogent evidence produced on record by the prosecution. In this backdrop, the EO has rightly concluded, that the charges levelled against the applicant, stand duly proved. Thus the contrary arguments of the learned counsel that applicant was unable to resume his duty, "stricto-sensu" deserves to be and are hereby repelled in the present set of circumstances. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be said that there is no cogent evidence on record against the applicant or the relevant authorities have not considered the defence evidence of the applicant, as urged on his behalf.
25. Thus, in the absence of any procedural illegality and irregularity, in the conduct of DE, no ground to interfere with the impugned enquiry proceedings and orders is made out, in 12 OA No.3300/2013 view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others (2009) 15 SCC 620.
26. Now we advert to the next contention of learned counsel for the applicant, that keeping in view the illness of the applicant, the department should have treated him being on leave of the kind due instead of dismissing him from service. In this regard, it may be added here that, assuming for the sake of argument, if applicant was sick, even then he has to inform the department and he ought to have got his leave sanctioned from the competent authority. He cannot claim leave, as a matter of right as envisaged under SO 111 and Rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as "Leave Rules"). Rule 19 (1)(ii) posits that, in respect of a non-Gazetted Government servant, an application for leave on medical grounds shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in Form 4 given by a CGHS doctor. According to Rule 25(2) of Leave Rules, the wilful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable for disciplinary action. The reliance in this regard, can be placed to the ratio of law laid in the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1320/2013 decided on 28.02.2014 titled as Ramesh Kumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others. Thus, this argument of counsel for the applicant has no force.
13 OA No.3300/2013
27. The last submissions of the learned counsel, that DA has wrongly taken into consideration the previous conduct/absence of the applicant and punishment awarded to him, is otherwise harsh, and excessive, are not at all tenable. A bare perusal of the record would reveal, that DA has only mentioned, as a matter of fact, that the applicant is a habitual absentee and had remained absent on 75 previous occasions. In fact, the DA has not relied upon his previous conduct and imposed the penalty on the applicant on the ground of long absence from duty in the past. DA has specifically mentioned in the impugned order as under:-
"however, his previous absence/conduct is not being taken into consideration".
28. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.O.I. & Others Vs. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102 has held that in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment, if the facts of the case so require. It was also held that habitual absenteeism means, gross violation of discipline.
29. Therefore, it cannot possibly be disputed that wilful absence from duty by a Government servant, is a serious misconduct. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.
14 OA No.3300/2013
30. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Mithilesh Singh Vs. Vs. U.O.I. & Others AIR 2003 SC 1724 wherein, it was ruled that absence from duty, without prior intimation is a grave offence warranting removal from service. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 302, has held that absence of the respondent from duty, would amount to grave misconduct and there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding, that the punishment was not commensurate with the gravity of the charge.
31. Again, the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Ashappa, (2006) 5 SCC 137 and State of Rajasthan vs. Mohd. Ayub Naz: 2006 SCC (L&S) 175, has observed that habitual absenteeism can be a valid ground for dismissal of an employee from service. Absenteeism from office, for a prolonged period of time, without prior permission by government servants, has become a principal cause of indiscipline, which has greatly affected various government services. In order to mitigate the rampant absenteeism, and wilful absence from service without intimation to the Government, he may be removed from service.
32. In the instant case, having completed all the codal formalities and agreeing with the findings of the EO, the DA has reconsidered all the issues raised by the applicant in the 15 OA No.3300/2013 impugned order (Annexure A-3). The operative part of which reads as under:-
"From the record available on file, it is proved that the defaulter was remained absent for 02 years 05 days and 08 hours from 02.10.2009 to 08.10.2011 since, he was marked absent vide DD No. 23 dated 02.10.2009 and resumed his duty vide No. 11 dated 08.10.2011, Parliament Traffic Circle. Also he remained absent himself from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 for a period of 06 days 02 hours and 50 minutes. However, he has taken plea that he was seriously ill and he could not inform the competent authority. He also admitted in his defence statement that he received all the four absentee notices but failed to comply the directions of the senior officers. He submits his medical papers which shows that he was suffering from deferent types of diseases like FUC, Ac.Backache, Depression etc. It is surprisingly that he submits the medical papers of his absence period from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 (6 days 2 hours 50 minutes) where as he had resumed his duty on 18.06.2009 at Vivek Vihar Traffic Circle but he failed to submit such medical papers at that time. This shows that he managed the medical rest at later stage to create his defence as the ailments mentioned in the medical certificate are not of a serious nature. Besides, it is noticed that he had absented himself on 75 occasions without any intimation to the department/competent authority in past service carrier and Des were also initiated against him earlier as well for unauthorized absence and he was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of 2 years and 05 years service respectively. The punishment of Forfeiture of 05 years service permanently was awarded to him vide order No. 8950-66/HAP-T(D-1/HQ) dated 12.08.2009 and just after 01 & half month of decision of the abovementioned period, he again absented himself on 02.10.2009. Thereafter, when the instant DE initiated against him on 19.09.2011, he resumed his duty on 08.10.2011 vide DD No. 11/PTC. He was relieved from PTC to RND vide DD No. 07 dated 13.10.2011 and still running absent. There is no doubt in establishing the charge levelled against him. The defaulter remained absent wilfully and un-authorisedly, which is not acceptable in a disciplined force in any manner.
I have carefully gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and other material/evidence available on the record of DE file. I agree with findings of Enquiry Officer that the charge levelled against the defaulter Ct. Sunil Kumar, No. 1056/T is substantiated without any doubt. This conduct indicates that he is in the habit of absenting himself in utter disregard of the instructions/rules of the department in a manner unbecoming of a member of a uniformed organization. This clearly indicates that he is not interested to serve the department.
In a disciplinary force wilful and un-authorized absence, if taken leniently will not only encourage others to follow suit but it will also destroy the whole fabric of discipline. There is no doubt in establishing the charge levelled against him by the enquiry officer. The delinquent remained absent wilfully and un-authorisedly, which is not acceptable in a disciplined force in any manner.
In view of above facts and discussion, I do not see any other penalty, which can be awarded to such incorrigible type of person except to dismiss him from service. The above act on the part of Constable Sunil Kumar, No. 1056/T amounts to grave misconduct rendering him unfit for police service. Therefore, I, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Dy. Commissioner of Police (CR) dismiss Constable Sunil Kumar, No. 1056/T from 12.06.2009 to 18.06.2009 and 02.10.2009 to 07.10.2011 and 05.11.2011 to till date is treated as "period not spent on duty" for all intents and purposes, which will not be regularized in any manner. However, his previous absences/conduct is not being taken into consideration here".16 OA No.3300/2013
33. Sequelly, all the relevant points raised by the applicant were duly dealt with by AA who, after having carefully considered the matter, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant, vide impugned order (Annexure A-4).
34. The wilful and unauthorized absence for a long period of 2 years, 5 days & 8 hours and 6 days, 2 hours and 50 minutes is duly proved on record. The DA & AA have correctly appreciated the matter in the right perspective. In this backdrop of the matter, it cannot legally be termed that the DA has considered the previous conduct of the applicant or the punishment awarded to the applicant is excessive, as urged on behalf of the applicant. The ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the indicated judgments is mutatis mutandis applicable to the present controversy and is a complete answer to the problem in hand. The contrary arguments put forth on behalf of the applicant's, "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled in the present set of circumstances.
35. Therefore, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in the impugned orders warranting any interference, in the obtaining circumstances of the case, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. U.O.I. & Others AIR 1996 SC 484 and K.L. Shinde v. State of Mysore, (1976) 3 SCC 76.
17 OA No.3300/2013
36. No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
37. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA and the same is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(K.N. SHRIVASTAVA) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
12.09.2016
Rakesh