Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Padmanaban P vs Isro on 3 January, 2024
1
OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00287/2022
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Padmanaban P.
S/o Parasuraman G.
Aged about 44 years
Staff No. IS04632
Transport Division
U.R. Rao Satellite Centre
Old Airport Road, Vimanapura Post
Bangalore-560 017. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Ms. Maitreyi Krishnan representing Advocate Ms. Sruti
Chaganti)
Vs.
1.Chairman ISRO, Secretary DOS
Department of Space and ISRO HQ
Antariksh Bhavan
New BEL Road
Bangalore - 560 231.
2. The Director/ Appellate Authority
U.R. Rao Satellite Center
Old Airport Road, Vimanapura Post
Bangalore - 560 017.
3. The Controller/ Disciplinary Authority
U.R. Rao Satellite Center
Old Airport Road, Vimanapura Post
Bangalore - 560 017.
2
OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
4. Sr Head P&GA/Disciplinary Authority
U.R. Rao Satellite Center
Old Airport Road, Vimanapura Post
Bangalore - 560 017.
5. The Director,
U.R. Rao Satellite Center
Old Airport Road, Vimanapura Post
Bangalore - 560 017. ....Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondents)
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 set aside the order bearing No. 020/1.5/90/Misc./2016/DLS dated 15.07.2019 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure A-16) vide which a minor penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage/one level for a period not exceeding one year without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension, has been imposed.
b) To quash the impugned order bearing No. 020/1.5/90/Misc./2016/DLS dated 22.02.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2 vide which the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant against the penalty order and confirmed the penalty imposed upon him. 3
OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
c) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The Applicant was appointed as Heavy Vehicle Driver-A in ISRO Satellite Center on 24.08.2007. He was confirmed in his post with effect from 24.11.2008. He has since been promoted and is currently holding the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver-B in U.R. Rao Satellite Center. He has faithfully served the institution for over 12 years as on date.
b) On 30.05.2016, a memo was issued by the Head, Transport Division of the Respondent establishment to the Applicant stating that he had interrupted and badly obstructed the working of one Shri Kiran Kumar.
It was alleged that the Applicant had threatened the government employee of dire consequence abetting to suicide or murder, and sought for a reply on the same.
c) The Applicant vide reply dated 01.06.2016 sought for the provision of the written complaint on the basis of which the memo was issued. The Applicant also sought for the said complaint filed against him vide letter dated 02.06.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought for further time to respond to the memo dated 30.05.2016. 4
OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
d) The said complaint was still not provided to him, and instead a "Note"
dated 03.06.2016 was issued to the Applicant. The Applicant replied to the same on 10.06.2016 stating that the allegations made against him were all false.
e) Sr. Head P&GA/Disciplinary Authority vide Order dated 23.09.2016 issued an order to conduct preliminary enquiry into the allegations and appointed Shri Suresh M.V to conduct the preliminary enquiry. Vide memorandum dated 21.03.2017, the 3rd respondent informed the Applicant that it was proposed to take action against him under Rule 13 of DOS (CCA) Rules, 1976 and sought for his representation in this regard. The Applicant submitted reply dated 03.04.2017 responding to the imputations of charge. The Respondents served Memorandum of Charge bearing in No. 020/1.5/90/Misc/2017/DLS (IS04632) dated 24.08.2017.
f) The statement of allegations made in the charge is that the Applicant, Shri Vema Murali and Shri N. Jeevaji Rao Pawar, threatened Shri. Kiran Kumar R. for having assigned general shift duties to Shri Vema Murali. Shri Vema Murali was assigned general shift duty on 26.05.2016 which starts at 9:30 AM and ends at 3:00 PM. After this duty Shri Vema Murali was detailed for part of split duty i.e. regular drop duty which starts at 5:00 PM. Shri Vema Murali used harsh language for having assigned general shift duty to him, in a raised voice and abused Shri Kiran Kumar R. Soon after this incident within a few minutes, Shri Vema Murali came back along with Shri Jeevaji Rao 5 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Pawar N and Shri Padmanaban P and questioned Shri Kiran Kumar R for having assigned Shri Murali with general duties. It is alleged that at that time the Applicant joined hands with Shri Vema Murali and Shri Padmanaban P and has intimidated irately stating that if this continues, a suicide or murder would take place. He also allegedly warned Shri Kiran Kumar R of conducting strike against him and calling the media.
g) A common inquiry was initiated against the Applicant and Shri N. Jeevaji Rao Pawar by Order No. 020/1.5/90/Misc./2017/DLS dated 09.03.2018. In the enquiry, the Complainant Shri Kiran Kumar denied the allegations in the complaint and stated that the Applicant did not threaten him or use any unparliamentarily words against him.
h) The Presenting Officer in the said enquiry submitted a prosecution brief dated 22.01.2019 in regard to whether the charges leveled against the Charged Officials, including the Applicant were proved. As per the same, the Presenting Officer concluded that the charges against the Charged Officers including the Applicant did not stand proved. The Enquiry Officer submitted a common inquiry report on 04.02.2019 finding that the charges do not stand proved.
i) In regard to Shri Vema Murali, a separate enquiry was initiated vide memorandum dated 07.03.2017. The said Shri Vema Murali appears to have submitted a representation dated 15.03.2017 and 24.04.2017 and tendered an apology for the mistake committed by him and pleaded guilty to the charges leveled against him. The Disciplinary Authority 6 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench in regard to Shri Murali vide order dated 11.05.2017 imposed a penalty on Shri Vema Murali by ordering that his pay be reduced to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage, i.e. from Rs. 23,100/- to Rs. 22,400/- in Level 02 for a period of 1 one-year w.e.f. 08.05.2017 (FN) with cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.
j) The 3rd respondent issued order dated 02.04.2019 to the Applicant stating that the 3rd respondent disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, for the following reasons:
i. The inquiry officer visited the place of the incident without the complainant.
ii. The Complainant issued letter dated 15.05.2018 that the Defense Assistant was shouting and ranting during inquiry proceedings and this has not been highlighted.
iii. The Complainant had submitted a letter dated 18.05.2018 that the Defense Assistant had intimidated him to answer 'Yes' and 'No'.
iv. Total five officials were mentioned in the charge sheet as prosecution witnesses and it is unclear whether four witnesses have been examined in the enquiry proceedings.
k) The Applicant submitted reply dated 14.05.2019, seeking for the charges to be dropped and explaining how the case was completely fabricated.7
OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
l) The 3rd respondent has thereafter issued Order dated 15.07.2019 disagreeing with conclusions of the Inquiry Report and has held that the Applicant is guilty of misconduct and has imposed a penalty reducing the pay of the Applicant to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage/one level i.e. from Rs. 30,500/- to Rs. 29,600/- in Level 4 for a period of one year with effect from 15.07.2019 (FN) without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.
m) The 3rd respondent has held that the applicant is guilty on the basis of the following, which are disputed by the applicant:
i. The circumstances which led to the unsavoury incident. In regard to this, it is submitted that such a statement is vague and does not in any manner show how the Applicant was guilty of the charges made against him ii. Shri Vema Murali admitting the charge in his letter dated 24.04.2017 and pleaded guilty. In this regard it is submitted, that firstly the admission of another worker in another proceeding cannot be used against the applicant. Secondly, it is submitted that such letter being relied upon was not produced during his enquiry, and now cannot be used to arrive at a conclusion against the Applicant.
iii. Shri Vema Murali in his letter dated 01.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 had mentioned that he took the assistance of the applicant on the day of the incident. In this regard, it is submitted that this letter was never made available letter to the Applicant and has been 8 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench marked by the 3rd respondent for the first time in this order as Annexure - 1. Further this reason for disagreeing with the enquiry officer report was not provided for in the order dated 02.04.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent.
iv. The clear 'yes' statement given by Shri Abdullah and eyewitness about the happening of the incident. In this regard, it is submitted that neither Shri Abdullah nor eye witnesses were examined in the enquiry against the Applicant, and hence, such statements alleged to have been made could not have been relied upon. v. The presence of the Applicant was established at the place by the statement during the preliminary enquiry. This statement is made without reference to any material on record, and in fact the material on record in no way shows the presence of the Applicant or that the Applicant is guilty of the charges alleged against him. vi. The department proceedings are held on the principles of preponderance of probability. It is submitted that in the absence of any material to show that the charges against the applicant were established, the 3rd respondent could not have arrived at the conclusion that he was guilty of the charges alleged against him.
n) The Applicant preferred O.A. No. 186/2021 before this Tribunal, against the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2019, on 15.02.2021 and the same came to be disposed of vide order dated 15.03.2021 with liberty to the applicant to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent. 9
OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
o) The Applicant preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 02.08.2021 setting out in detail the reasons for impugning the order passed by the 3rd respondent and the reasons for the delay in approaching the appellate authority.
p) The appeal came to be dismissed vide the impugned order in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind, merely stating that the 2nd Respondent has gone through the entire record and is satisfied that all procedures laid down in DOSE (CCA) Rules, 1976 have been complied with and that the Applicant has failed to bring out any new facts or material evidences in his appeal to substantiate that he is not guilty. The 2nd respondent also failed to apply his mind to the reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The Disciplinary Authority had initiated Minor Penalty Proceedings against Shri Padmanaban P under Rule 13 of the Department of Space Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 by issuing him a Charge Memorandum No.020/1.1/56/2017/DLS (IS04632) dated 21.03.2017.
b) On receipt of the Charge Memorandum dated 21.03.2017, Shri Padmanaban P through his letter dated 12.05.2017 had stated that there is no truth in the allegations made by Shri Kiran Kumar R and hence, he requested to hold an Inquiry in the manner laid down in sub rules 10 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench (3) to (23) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or as per Department of Space Employees' (CCA) Rules, 1976. Accordingly, a fresh memorandum vide No:020/1.5/89/Misc./2017/DLS (IS04632) dated 24.08.2017 was issued to Shri Padmanaban P for his alleged misconduct. The Article of Charge framed against the appellant Shri Padmanaban P was as below:
Article of Charge-1:
i. "Shri Padmanaban P. Heavy Vehicle Driver-'B', Staff No:1S04632, Transport, ISAC (URSC), and other two staff drivers namely Shri Jeevaji Rao Pawar N, Staff No.1S03359, Proj. Light Vehicle Driver, ISAC (URSC), Bangalore & Shri Vema Murali, Staff No: SH15431, Heavy Vehicle Driver- 'A: ISAC (URSC), Bangalore threatened Shri R Kiran Kumar, Staff No.IS05655, Assistant, Transport, ISAC (URSC) on 26.05.2016 at 5:00 PM for having assigned general shift duties to Shri Vema Murali. Shri Vema Murali was assigned general shift duty on 26.05.2016, which starts at 9:30 AM and ends at 3:00 PM. After this duty, Shri Vema Murali was detailed for part of split duty i.e. regular drop duty, which starts at 5:00 PM. For having assigned general shift duty, Shri Vema Murali used harsh language in a raised voice and abused Shri R Kiran Kumar. Soon after this incident, within a few minutes, Shri Vema Murali came back along with Shri Jeevaji Rao Pawar N and Shri P Padmanaban 11 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench and questioned Shri R Kiran Kumar for having assigned him with general duties.
ii. At this juncture, Shri Padmanaban P joined hands with Shri Vema Murali along with Shri Jeevaji Rao Pawar N and has intimidated irately stating that if this continues, a suicide or murder takes place and also warned Shri R Kiran Kumar of conducting strike against him and calling media and thus causing severe mental trauma and harassment to Shri R Kiran Kumar.
iii. By the above acts of misconduct, Shri Padmanaban P has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant in violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
a) Rule 3 (1) (iii) (i.e., indulging in acts unbecoming of a Government servant)
b) Rule 3-C, (23) (7) (i.e., servant is abusive and disturbing the peace at the place of his employment)
c) Rule 3-C, (23) (4) under the acts & omissions amount to misconduct of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (i.e., Gross moral misconduct and riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment)"
c) The appellant Shri Padmanaban P was provided with a copy of the Article of Charge, the Statement of imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour and a list of documents by which and list of witnesses 12 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench by whom the Article of Charge is proposed to be sustained along with Charge Memorandum dated 24.08.2017 by the Disciplinary Authority.
The appellant was directed to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said Charge Memorandum dated 24.08.2017 and to state whether the appellant desires to be heard in person by Disciplinary Authority.
d) Shri Padmanaban P vide his letter dated 05.09.2017 had denied the charges to the Memorandum dated 24.08.2017. Further, Shri Padmanaban P through his letter dated 13.11.2017 reiterated his denial about the charges but also requested for holding Common Inquiry Proceedings against him and Shri Jeevaji Rao Pawar N as the allegations was common in nature. The then Controller / Disciplinary Authority (for the case of Shri Jeevaji Rao Pawar N) in consultation with the then Sr. Head, P&GA / Disciplinary Authority (for the case of Shri Padmanaban P) had Ordered for Common Inquiry Proceedings under sub rules (1) & (2) of Rule 15 of DOSE' (CCA) Rules, 1976 vide Order No:020/1.5/90/Misc./2017/DLS dated 14.03.2018 and accordingly appointed Shri Raghava Reddy O V, Staff No.IS01754, Scientist Engineer-G, URSC as Inquiring Authority and Shri Taberez Ali Thotad, Staff No.HQ04088, Sr. Accounts Officer, URSC as Presenting Officer vide Order No:020/1.5/90/Misc./2017/DLS dated 09.03.2018 for holding Common Inquiry Proceedings and to inquire into the charges framed against Shri Padmanaban P and Shri Jeevaji Rao Pawar N. 13 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) The Inquiring Authority after holding Common Inquiry Proceedings had submitted his Inquiry Report vide report No. CIP/2018 dated 04.02.2019 to the then Controller / Disciplinary Authority duly stating that the charges do not stand proved.
f) In terms of provisions available in Rule 12 (2A) of DOSE' (CCA) Rules, 1976, Disciplinary Authority vide Order No.020/ 1.5/ 90/ Misc./ 2017/DLS dated 02.04.2019 communicated to both the Charged officials a tentative disagreement with the Inquiring Authority's report dated 04.02.2019 and advised the charged officials to make a representation / submission if any, in writing within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order dated 02.04.2019.
g) After availing 15 days of additional time for submitting their representation against the Disciplinary Authority's tentative dis- agreement order dated 02.04.2019, the Charged officials through their joint representation dated 14.05.2019 had submitted the explanation and at the same time requested to be relieved from the charges.
h) It is relevant to note here that Shri Vema Murali, Staff No.SH15431, HVD-'A' was also one of the charged officials in this case and accordingly a charge sheet was issued vide Memorandum No:
020/1.1/56/2017/DLS(SH15431) dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure - R13). Shri Vema Murali vide his letter dated 24.04.2017 admitted the charges by apologizing for his acts. Accordingly, Disciplinary Authority had imposed Minor Penalty of "Reduction to the lower stage in the time 14 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench scale of pay by ONE STAGE / ONE LEVEL for a period not exceeding One year without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension".
i) Disciplinary Authority examined the entire gamut of the case, related documents and perused the records available related to the incident. It took into account the following:
(i) the circumstances which led to the unsavory incident;
(ii) Shri Vema Murali clearly admitting to the charges vide his letter dated 24.04.2017 and pleading guilty;
(iii) Shri Vema Murali vide his letters dated 01.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 clearly mentioning that he took the assistance / help of Shri Jeevaji Rao Pawar and Shri Padmanaban P on the day of incidence i.e on 26.05.2016 during the altercation with Shri Kiran Kumar R;
(iv) the clear "Yes" statement of Shri Abdulla, an eye witness about the happening of the incident,
(v) the presence of Shri Jeevaji Rao Pawar and Shri Padmanaban established at the place of incidence beyond any kind of doubts by their very statements during the Preliminary Inquiry and also
(vi) the applicability of the principles of Preponderance of Probability in the Departmental proceedings, 15 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
j) The DA came to the conclusion that the incident had indeed taken place on 26.05.2016 and the charge was Proved Beyond any Doubt. Accordingly, in terms of Sub rule (2) of Rule 9 of DOSE' (CCA) Rules, 1976, Disciplinary Authority imposed a Minor Penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding one year without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension on Shri Padmanaban P / Appellant. The Penalty was imposed on 15.07.2019 and for a period of one-year upto 14.07.2020.
k) Aggrieved by the above said penalty order dated 15.07.2019, Shri Padmanaban P had filed O.A No.186/2021 before this Tribunal. After hearing, this Tribunal had passed its decision vide its Order dated 18.03.2021 stating as follows:
"After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant wishes to withdraw the Original Application with liberty to file an appeal against the order dated 15.07.2019, which has been impugned herein. In view of the above, the Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid."
l) Shri Padmanaban P had preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., Director, U R Rao Satellite Centre vide his letter dated 02.08.2021 along with the reasons for delay in submitting the appeal. The same was considered by the Appellate Authority and taking all the 16 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench facts into consideration, the Appeal was disposed vide Order dated 22.02.2022 upholding the Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the imposition of minor penalty on him for the alleged misconduct which occurred on 26.05.2016 when the applicant along with Shri N.Jeevaji Rao Pawar and Shri Vema Murali had allegedly questioned the allocation of duty of Shri Vema Murali and had allegedly threatened Shri Kiran Kumar during the course of arguments.
6. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry had concluded that the charges of misconduct as listed in the articles of charge relating to riotous or disorderly behaviour, disturbing the peace of the place of employment, and/or indulging in acts unbecoming of a government servant, do not stand proved.
7. In his analysis of the case, he had observed as under: -
"Analysis of the case:
Preliminary info. To understand the cause of incidence. (After studying the case and pre-hearing info,) Mr Vemamurali HVD transport was performing duty from 6.30AM onwards on the day of incidence i.e. 26-05-2016 and the second duty of the day was from URSC to LEOS and he was expected to return to URSC from LEOS by 3.30PM. However, he could reach only at 4.55 PM and was asked to perform route no 6. evening drop duty as soon as he reached the transport yard. He knows only Telugu language. He argued with 17 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench complainant in Telugu asking for small break or swap of duty with 7.00PM shift route as he is tired. As his request was turned down, then he requested Cos (senior colleagues) to tell Mr Kiran about his issue as he could not convey properly due to language problem. Then whole incident had happened.
It is also noted that some drivers were present without duty on that day at the time of incidence. Why spare resources are not utilised is not known for a genuine request. Or at least swap the duty with 7.00PM route. Note from transport for available resources at Annexure-2. (This much is noted as prelude to the case. Further not inquired as the case only to inquire COs charges).
Recommendation for above issue:
It is well known that Bangalore traffic is very bad and there should be some procedure to find the driver's location and alternate action plan should be worked out by deployment incharge with proper utilisation of available drivers.
This is being the root cause of the issue and connected with safety of employees and govt. property, it is recommended to inquire/revisit procedure for allotment of duty to drivers so that this type of issues will not happen again."
8. The Disciplinary Authority, however, did not agree with the observations made by the Inquiry Authority and imposed a minor penalty on the applicant similar to the minor penalty imposed upon Shri Vema Murali who had apparently pleaded guilty to the charge leveled against him in a separate inquiry.
9. The major reason for imposition of a minor penalty on the applicant has been the fact that earlier a minor penalty had already been imposed on Shri 18 OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Vema Murali, subsequent to him admitting the charges in a separate disciplinary proceeding.
10. A perusal of the report of the enquiry officer indicates that the root cause of incidence as observed by the Inquiring Officer, was lack of proper communication between the supervisory officer and the driver due to language problem and a lack of empathy and understanding by the officer while allocating duties to various drivers without taking into account the problems of stress and fatigue faced by drivers due to the traffic issues in Bangalore. In fact, such situations, where the drivers are forced to perform duties when they are stressed and fatigued, can lead to accidents resulting in safety issues for the employees, as well as damage to government property, as rightly observed by the Inquiry Officer in his report. Hence, it would have been more appropriate for the supervisory officer responsible for allocation of duties to drivers to examine the genuine grievances of the drivers and dealing with the situation appropriately avoiding unpleasant situation which may have led to an altercation. The disciplinary authority has also failed to consider this aspect while disposing of the matter and imposing a penalty.
11. Such kind of disputes and interactions can be expected during work, when persons are working under stress/pressure and are tired. The request of Vema Murali to swap his duty on the ground that he was tired after performing duties from morning to afternoon in extreme Bangalore Traffic, cannot be considered as unreasonable. Such a situation needs understanding and delicate handling, instead of imposing penalties for misbehavior. 19
OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
12. 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 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."
13. This Tribunal feels that the quantum of punishment imposed in this case, despite being a minor penalty, is certainly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct committed by the applicant in this case. 20
OA.No.170/287/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
14. Keeping the above in view, the penalty order deserves to be set-aside. The Disciplinary Authority should re-consider the matter inasmuch as the quantum of punishment is concerned.
15. Consequently, this OA stands disposed of with the following directions: -
a) The order dated 15.07.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 22.02.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2 at Annexure A-16 & A-19 respectively are set-aside.
b) The matter is restored to the file of the Respondent No. 3- Disciplinary Authority to re-consider the matter inasmuch as the quantum of the punishment is concerned and take an appropriate decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
c) Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner in any event not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
16. OA stands disposed of, in terms of above. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/hy/