Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satyender vs Govt. Of Nctd on 2 June, 2023
1
OA No.1319/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.1319/2021
Reserved on: 23.05.2023
Pronounced on: 02.06.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Satyender, age 28 years,
S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh,
R/o 3/4, Gali No.3,
West Ghonda, Bhajanpura,
New Delhi-53.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Nava Sachivalaya, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General (Prisons),
Tihar Jail,
Near Lajwanti Garden Chowk,
Janakpuri,
Delhi-64.
3. The Principal Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Home Department,
5th Level, 'C' Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand)
2
OA No.1319/2021
ORDER
R.N. Singh, Member (J):
Through the medium of this Original Application (OA), filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"8.1. To Set aside the impugned SCN dated 26.8.2020, order dated 7.9.2020 issued by Director General (Prisons) Delhi whereby the service of applicant stands terminated under Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules and order dated 10.6.2021 (received on 30.6.2021) whereby the appeal of the applicant made against the termination order dated 7.9.2020 has been rejected and to further direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.
8.2 To quash and set aside the order dated 20.8.2020 whereby the termination order dated 26.9.2019 is being set aside to an extent whereby a specific allegation of misconduct is being levelled against the applicant but still no compliance of Art. 311 (to conduct a D.E. under service rules) is sought but only compliance of principle of natural justice is directed thus causing severe prejudice to the applicant.
or/and Any other relief which this Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the instant OA, are that the applicant 3 OA No.1319/2021 joined the respondent department on 13.09.2018 as Warder (Tihar). On 08.09.2018 he put on uniform and kept some tobacco in his pocket and forgot to keep the same in the locker and entered in Deodhi, where he was found having small quantity of tobacco, about 15-20 gm, which was for his personal use. 2.1 The respondents issued an order dated 26.09.2019 whereby the services of the applicant have been terminated under Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, that too, without affording any opportunity to the applicant.
2.2 Aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal dated 27.09.2019 against the order of termination dated 26.09.2019 wherein he submitted that he has not been afforded any opportunity before terminating his services, which is in contravention of the principles of natural justice.
2.3 The Appellate Authority (AA), however, passed an order on 20.08.2020, thereby setting aside the order of termination dated 26.09.2019 and remanding the matter back to 4 OA No.1319/2021 Disciplinary Authority (DA) for taking action in accordance with the applicable rules duly keeping in mind the principles of natural justice.
2.4 The order dated 20.08.2020 whereby the termination order dated 26.09.2019 is being set aside, is being challenged to an extent a specific allegation of misconduct is being levelled against the applicant but still no protection of Article 311 is sought and only compliance of principle of natural justice is directed, which is causing severe prejudice to the applicant.
2.5 The respondents have issued an order dated 20.08.2020 whereby the DG (Prisons) has revoked the earlier termination order and placed the applicant under deemed suspension w.e.f. 26.09.2019 till further orders. 2.6 Thereafter the applicant has been issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 26.08.2020 under Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules on the following allegation:
5OA No.1319/2021
"that on 8.9.2019 at about 9:3O PM Sh. Satyender, Warder-1933 entered in Deodhi for performing duty in Ward No.12 (Special Security Ward) of Central Jail No.8/9. During the mandatory searching/frisking approximately 60 gram tobacco was recovered from the possession of Sh. Satyender, Warder- 1933 by TSP Havaldar-1415 Sh. B. Naveen Kumar which was concealed in the inner side of his under wear.
Whereas, recovery of prohibited article inside the jail clearly depicts that the intentions of Sh. Satydender, warder-1933 is supposed to be disciplined and is expected to maintain a responsible and decent standard of conduct and not to bring discredit to his service by his mis-demeanours. But by doing the above act, Sh. Satyender, Warder-1933 has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has shown lack of devotion and dedication towards his duty and thus he acted in a manner which is unbecoming of Government Servant."
3. Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that from a perusal of the aforesaid SCN it is clear that services of the applicant have been terminated due to alleged misconduct and as such the SCN issued under Rule 5 (1) of CCS 9TS) Rules, 1965 is punitive and can be issued only after subjecting the applicant to a proper departmental enquiry which in turn makes the SCN dated 20.08.2020 as bad in laws. 3.1 Mr. Chauhan further submitted that the applicant filed his reply to the aforesaid SCN on 31.08.2020 wherein he submitted that 6 OA No.1319/2021 he kept the tobacco for his personal use and forgot to keep the same in the locker before entering Deodhi. He himself asked the TSP personnel to do frisking which further shows his bonafide.
3.2 The DA, however, vide order dated 07.09.2020 terminated the services of the applicant under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. The services of the applicant have been terminated on the alleged misconduct and hence the termination order is punitive and cannot be passed without holding regular departmental enquiry, thus making the impugned termination order dated 07.09.2020 as bad in law.
3.3 The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant filed an appeal against the termination order dated 07.09.2020 before the AA. The AA, however, placing reliance on the material/documents collected during Preliminary Enquiry (PE) rejected the appeal, which was never put to him. This clearly establishes that an enquiry has been conducted behind the back of the applicant 7 OA No.1319/2021 and the material collected therein has been relied heavily while passing the impugned order. He has never been part of any regular enquiry nor any material against him has been put, which can be done only if he has been subjected to DE under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 but the respondents resorted to Rule 5(1) of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965.
3.4 He further submitted that the applicant is subjected to hostile discrimination as his plea that his case needs to be considered at par with one Mr. Ravi Dhama, Warder has been rejected. Mr. Dhama who has been terminated during probation on the allegation of keeping tobacco in his trouser has been reinstated back in service by the AA but the appeal of the applicant made subsequent to termination has been rejected, which is a clear cut case of hostile discrimination and is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, thus making the order of the AA as bad in law. Applicant being similarly placed as the said Mr. Ravi Dhama, cannot be given a 8 OA No.1319/2021 different treatment, that too by the same department.
3.5 The learned counsel submitted that the allegation against the applicant that contraband article carried in the jail for the purposes of smuggling is totally unwarranted as the quantity being disclosed by the applicant is only 15-20 gms which can be used only for personal purpose. The inadvertent mistake on the part of the applicant was that the tobacco for personal use by mistake could not be kept in locker and it is denied that the same was recovered from his under-garment. 3.6 The learned counsel lastly submitted that the AA did not consider the specific plea made by the applicant in his appeal and rejected the same vide order dated 10.06.2021, thereby causing severe prejudice to the applicant.
3.7 In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied on the following decisions, where in similar circumstances the termination has been quashed:
9OA No.1319/2021
i) Decision of this Tribunal in Devi Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., OA No.874/2007, decided on 30.11.2007.
ii) Decision of a Coordinate Bench in Gaurav v. Govt. of NCT & Ors., OA
No.819/2017, decided on 19.11.2007.
iii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, (1999) 3 SCC 60.
iv) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.8662 of 2015, decided on 15.10.2015.
v) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Palak Modi and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.7841-7843 of 2012 decided on 03.12.2012.
vi) Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in S.S. Mota Singh Jr. Model School v.
Tanjeet Kaur and Anr., W.P. (C) No.6284/2012, decided on 07.07.2015.10 OA No.1319/2021
vii) Decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Director General (Prison) v. Satbir Singh, W.P. (C) No.13978/2009, decided on 20.10.2010.
3.8 In view of the above, the learned counsel submitted that since the termination of the applicant is based on his specific misconduct, it cannot be termed as an order simpliciter. The impugned order, is, therefore, found to be punitive and stigmatic, as passed without the protection of Article 311 and hence the veil is not required to be lifted. As such, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the instant OA.
4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicant and by referring to the counter-reply filed by the respondents, submitted that during the mandatory searching/frisking, approx. 60 grams tobacco was recovered from the possession of the applicant which was concealed in the inner side of his under wear. Mr. Anand further submitted that it is an 11 OA No.1319/2021 afterthought story of the applicant to depict himself innocent and also twisting the matter in different angles to divert the attention of this Tribunal from the facts of the matter. 4.1 The learned counsel further submitted that the Appointing Authority terminated the services of the applicant, Warder-1933 in pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 and in the light of the terms and conditions contained in offer letter dated 20.07.2018.
4.2 It is further submitted that the AA remanded the matter back to the DA as the former found that no opportunity was provided to the applicant to explain or to make his submissions and no SCN was issued to him in the matter before issuance of order of termination on 26.09.2019.
4.3 The impugned order is not punitive order as no stigma has been cast on the applicant and the impugned termination order is an order simpliciter and carries no evil consequences, hence the same is in accordance with law. This is not a case where 12 OA No.1319/2021 the impugned order is founded on any misconduct and at the best it can be a case of termination with motive of incident. The learned counsel submitted that if the foundation for the impugned order is the misconduct, the order can be interfered by this Tribunal. The termination has been passed in exercise of the power conferred under the rules and regulations.
4.4 It is further submitted that, in the instant case, the reasoning is only motive and not foundation inasmuch as the respondents have categorically and clearly stated the same to be misconduct.
4.5 It is further submitted that the Director General (Prisons)/DA, taking into account the gravity of the misconduct committed by the applicant, terminated his services under sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, vide impugned order dated 26.09.2019. 4.6 In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the learned counsel submitted that the OA is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
13OA No.1319/2021
5. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and also gone through the pleadings on record, including the judgments relied upon by learned counsels appearing for both the parties.
6. Reliance placed by Mr. Chauhan on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary (supra) has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, along with few other cases, titled Capt. Yashraj Tongia v. Union of India & Anr., OA No.2470/2015, in its order dated 08.02.2013. In para-10, the Coordinate Bench has ruled as under:
"10. The Apex Court in Mathew P. Thomas v Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. & others [(2003) 3 SCC 263], in para 11 held as follows:
"....From a long line of decisions it appears to us that whether an order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and motive in relation to an order of termination either is thin or overlapping. It may be difficult either to categorize or classify strictly orders of termination simpliciter falling in one or the other category, based on misconduct as foundation for passing the order of termination simpliciter or on motive on the ground of unsuitability to continue in service. If the form and language of the so-14 OA No.1319/2021
called order of termination simpliciter of a probationer clearly indicate that it is punitive in nature or/and it is stigmatic there may not be any need to go into the details of the background and surrounding circumstances in testing whether the order of termination is simpliciter or punitive. In cases where the services of a probationer are terminated by an order of termination simpliciter and the language and form of it do not show that either it is punitive or stigmatic on the face of it but in some cases there may be a background and attending circumstances to show that misconduct was the real basis and design to terminate the services of a probationer. In other words, the facade of the termination order may be simpliciter, but the real face behind it is to get rid of the services of a probationer on the basis of misconduct. In such cases it becomes necessary to travel beyond the order of termination simpliciter to find out what in reality is the background and what weighed with the employer to terminate the services of a probationer. In that process it also becomes necessary to find out whether efforts were made to find out the suitability of the person to continue in service or he is in reality removed from service on the foundation of his misconduct."
The above observation of the Apex Court makes it clear that while deciding whether the termination of a probationer is a termination simpliciter or punitive, the Tribunal can travel beyond the order of termination to find out what in reality is the background and what weighed with the employer to terminate the services of the probationer."
7. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered a similar controversy in Nina Lath Gupta, 2023:DHC:2944. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:
"27. Therefore, what emerges from the conspectus of the aforesaid judgments is that if an order is founded on allegations, the order is stigmatic and 15 OA No.1319/2021 punitive and services of an employee cannot be dispensed with without affording him an opportunity of defending the accusations/allegations made against him in a full-fledged inquiry. Since this case relates to a tenure appointment, it will be pertinent to look at the law with respect to stigmatic orders in the context of tenure appointments. In Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 526, Petitioner was Director, AIIMS, who had been appointed for a period of 5 years or till he attained the age of 62 years, whichever was earlier, the Supreme Court examined the meaning and connotation of the term 'tenure' and observed that tenure is a term during which an office is held. It is a condition of holding office and once a person is appointed to a tenure post, his appointment begins when he joins and comes to an end on completion of the tenure, unless curtailed on 'justifiable' grounds. Such a person does not superannuate, he only goes out of office on completion of his tenure and thus, the question of prematurely retiring him does not arise. In A.P. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd (supra), Respondent was appointed as General Manager (Finance) for a period of 3 years and prior to the said period coming to an end, his services were terminated. Respondent approached the High Court in a writ petition seeking quashing of the order and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after coming to a conclusion that the termination order was innocuous and not penal in nature and termination being in accordance with the contract of service, after giving three months' salary in lieu of the notice, required no interference. The Division Bench, allowing the appeal held that though the order on the face of it appeared to be innocuous, however, if the attendant circumstances were examined, more particularly, the stand in the counter affidavit, the conclusion was irresistible that the order was penal in nature and since penalty was imposed without affording opportunity to meet the charge, the order was unsustainable. This order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court and the contention of the Appellant was that the reasons indicated in the order were the motive for termination and not the foundation, requiring an inquiry, prior to termination. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Division Bench, to the extent that the order of termination was vitiated and ruled as follows:-
"3. The legal position is fairly well settled that an order of termination of a temporary employee or a probationer or even a tenure 16 OA No.1319/2021 employee, simpliciter without casting any stigma may not be interfered with by the court. But the court is not debarred from looking at the attendant circumstances, namely, the circumstances prior to the issuance of order of termination to find out whether the alleged inefficiency really was the motive for the order of termination or formed the foundation for the same order. If the court comes to a conclusion that the order was, in fact, the motive, then obviously the order would not be interfered with, but if the court comes to a conclusion that the so-called inefficiency was the real foundation for passing of order of termination, then obviously such an order would be held to be penal in nature and must be interfered with since the appropriate procedure has not been followed. The decisions of this Court relied upon by Mr K. Ram Kumar also stipulate that if an allegation of arbitrariness is made in assailing an order of termination, it will be open for the employer to indicate how and what was the motive for passing the order of termination, and it is in that sense in the counter-affidavit it can be indicated that the unsuitability of the person was the reason for which the employer acted in accordance with the terms of employment and it never wanted to punish the employee. But on examining the assertions made in paras 13 and 14 of the counter- affidavit, in the present case it would be difficult for us to hold that in the case in hand, the appellant-employer really terminated the services in accordance with the terms of the employment and not by way of imposing the penalty in question.
4. In fact, the letter of the Commissioner for Handlooms and Director of Handlooms and Textiles dated 19-5-1993 was the foundation for the employer to terminate the services and as such the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was justified in holding that the order of termination is based upon a misconduct, though on the face of it, it is innocuous in nature. We therefore do not find any infirmity with the said conclusion of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court requiring our interference."
xxx xxx xxx
29. Another judgment, which needs a mention and is close on facts, is in the case of Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 426, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the termination 17 OA No.1319/2021 order was issued in the backdrop of Internal Complaints Committee Report and going by the terms and tenor of the order, it was incomprehensible to construe such an order to be an order simplicitor when the report of the Inquiry Committee was the foundation. The Supreme Court also reiterated the position of law that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the termination order and may be in any document referred to therein, which reference will inevitably effect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as an ex facie stigmatic order of termination."
8. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Vijay Raj v. Union of India, Writ A. No.63968 of 2005, decided on 05.03.2020, has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, including in a few Constitution Bench judgements and has ruled in paras 61 and 62 as follows:
"61. From the above discussions, the principles discernible to find out whether a simple order of termination/discharge of a temporary employee or probationer is punitive or not, broadly, may be stated as under :
(a) The termination of services of a temporary servant or probationer under the rules of his employment or in exercise of contractual right is neither per se dismissal nor removal and does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution.
(b) An order of termination simplicitor prima facie is not a punishment and carries no evil consequences.
(c) Where termination simplicitor is challenged on the ground of casting stigma or penal in nature, the Court initially would glance the order itself to find out whether it cast any stigma and can be said to be penal or not. If it does not, no further enquiry shall be held unless there is some material to show 18 OA No.1319/2021 certain circumstances, preceding or attending, shadowing the simplicitorness of the said order.
(d) The Court is not precluded from going beyond the order to find out as to whether circumstances, preceding or attending, makes it punitive or not. If the circumstances, preceding or attending, show only the motive of the employer to terminate, it being immaterial would not vitiate the order unless it is found that order is founded on such act or omission constituting misconduct.
(e) If the order visits the public servant with evil consequences or casts aspersions against his character or integrity, it would be an order by way of punishment irrespective of whether the employee was a mere probationer or temporary.
(f) "Motive" and "foundation" are distinct, though the distinction is either very thin or overlapping.
"Motive" is the moving power, which impels action for a definite result, or to put it differently. "Motive"
is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. "Foundation", however, is the basis, i.e., the conduct of the employee, When his acts and omissions treated to be misconduct, proved or founded, it becomes a case of foundation.
(g) If an order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal, but if it falls short of it, it would not.
(h) Where the employer is satisfied of the misconduct and the consequent desirability of termination, it is dismissal even though the order is worded innocuously. However, where there is mere suspicion of misconduct and the employer does not wish to bother about it, and, instead of going into the correctness of guilt, feel like not to keep the employee and thus terminate him, it is simpliciter termination and not punitive.
(i) Where the termination simplicitor is preceded by an enquiry, preliminary or regular, the Court would see the purpose, object of such enquiry as also the stage at which, the order of termination has been passed.
(j) Every enquiry preceding the order of termination/discharge, would not make it punitive. Where an enquiry contemplated in the rules before terminating an probationer or temporary employee is held, it would not make the order punitive.
(k) If the enquiry is to find out whether the employee is fit to be confirmed or retained in service or to 19 OA No.1319/2021 continue, such an enquiry would not render termination punitive.
(l) Where the employer hold a formal enquiry to find out the correctness of the alleged misconduct of the employee and proceed on the finding thereof, such an order would be punitive, and, cannot be passed without giving an opportunity to the concerned employee.
(m) If some formal departmental enquiry commenced but not pursued to the end. Instead a simple order of termination is passed, the motive operating in the mind of the authority would be immaterial and such an order would be non punitive
(n) When an order of termination is assailed on the ground of mala fide or arbitrariness, while defending the plea of mala fide, if the authority has referred certain facts justifying the order of discharge relating to misconduct, negligence or inefficiency of the employee in the appeal or in the affidavit filed before the Court, that would not make the order founded on any misconduct.
(o) Sometimes when some reason is mentioned in the order, that by itself would not make the order punitive or stigmatic. The following words mentioned in the order have not been held to be punitive.
i. "want of application", ii. "lack of potential", iii.
"found not dependable", iv. "under suspension", v. "work is unsatisfactory", vi. "unlikely to prove an efficient officer".
(p) Description of background facts also have not been held to be stigmatic.
(q) However, the words "undesirable to be retained in Government service", have been held stigmatic.
(r) If there is (i) a full scale formal enquiry, (ii) in the allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct,
(iii) which culminated in a finding of guilt; where all these three factors are present, the order of termination would be punitive irrespective of the form. However, if any one of three factors is missing, then it would not be punitive.
62. The aforesaid are not exhaustive, but lay down some of the principles to find out whether termination of an employee is simplicitor or punitive. Each and every case has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, but broadly the aforesaid are the factors to 20 OA No.1319/2021 find out whether termination of an employee is punitive or not."
9. From the aforesaid judgment it stands settled that each and every case has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of case, of course, broadly keeping in view the factors as recorded in the said judgment to find out whether the termination of an employee is punitive or not? It also stands settled that while deciding whether the termination of a probationer is a termination simpliciter or punitive, the Tribunal can travel beyond the order of termination to find out what in reality weighed with the employer to terminate the services of the probationer.
10. From the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nina Lath Gupta (supra) it is settled that even if the order of termination of the probationer, on the face of it, appears to be innocuous and or order simpliciter, however, if the attending circumstances, more particularly the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the conclusion was irresistible that the order was penal in nature and since the penalty was 21 OA No.1319/2021 imposed without affording an opportunity to meet the charge, the order was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
11. In the counter-reply, the respondents have asserted in para 4.2 as under:
"It is an afterthought story of the charged official with shrewd mind to depict himself innocent and also twisting the matter in different angles to divert from the facts of the matter because as per the seizure memo the quantity of tobacco found was approx. 60 gms and this is not a small quantity and could not have been inadvertently kept in person for self consumption and that too in undergarment. This clearly proves that he had tried to smuggle the prohibited item, i.e., Tobacco inside the jail premises with malafide intention and for ulterior motives."
12. A similar assertion has been made by the respondents in para 4.12 of the counter reply as well.
13. In the aforesaid background, even if it is assumed that the impugned order dated 07.09.2020 is presumed to be an order simpliciter, however, in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents in the counter-reply, precisely recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of termination is founded on an act of specific misconduct of applicant and, therefore, the impugned order is found to be punitive and stigmatic. The same being 22 OA No.1319/2021 passed without holding an enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
14. Accordingly, the impugned SCN dated 26.08.2020, order dated 07.09.2020 and appellate order dated 10.06.2021 are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant shall be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary enquiry and or to take action in accordance with the relevant rules, if they so decide.
15. The OA stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N.Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
'San.'