Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Hair Mohan Gaur vs M/O Communications on 8 December, 2017
.~~ -- -- -- -~ -- -, (Re ser ved on 08.11.2017) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRI BUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ~ i'4f 't~ \ This the .. !-<.. ... ... day of .... ~.,. 2017.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH GUPTA , MEMBER (J).
HON'BLE MR. GOKUL CHANDRA PAT I, MEMBER (A).
Original Application Number. 330/166/201 6 Hari Mohan Gaur Portal Assistant Saving Bank Control Organization (PA SBCO) Head Post Office District Aligarh ............... Applicant. VE RS US
1. The Union of India through Secretary ( Ministry of Communication and IT), Department of Posts, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General UP Circle Lucknow.
3. The Post Master General Agra Region Agr a.
4. The Director Postal Services, Office of the Post Master General Agra Region Agra.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office Jhansi Division Jhansi.
6. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Aligarh Division Aligarh.
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Pos t Offices Lucknow Division Lucknow.
8. Sri T. Q. Mohammad, Post Master General , Agra Region Agra.
9. Sri Vinod Kumar, Director (Postal Service
s) Office of the Post Master General, Agra Region Agra.
I 2s Allgarh Sri M Abdali, the then senio r Superintendent of Post Office I 10.
11. Division Aligarh.
Sri R.K. nwari, Superintendent of Post Offices Etah Division (Enqu iry Officer) ······ .......... .Respondents Present for the applicant Shri Hari Mohan Gaur (in person} Present for the Respondents: Shri V.K. Pandey ORD ER Tribunal This OA has been filed under Section 19 of Administrative Act, 1985 with prayer for following reliefs:-
(i) An order be passed quashing the impugned Dismissal Order dated 28/31.10.2014 passed by the Director Postal Services, Office of the Post Master General Agra Region Agra, the or<;ler dated 20.05.2015 passed by the Post Master General Agra Region Agra as well as the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Chief Post Master General UP Circle Lucknow, copies whereof are contained in Annexure A-1, A-2 and A-3 respective to the original application;
(ii) Any other and further order may be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(iii) The cost of the present original application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant as against the respondents.
working as
2. The facts in brief as in the ·OA are that the applicant was SBCO ) in Head Portal Assistant Saving Bank Control Organization ( PA, nate grounds. He Post Office District Aligarh being appointed on compassio ) Rules, 1965 (in was issued charge-sheets under rule 14 of CCS (CCA 7 to the OA). The short Rules) vide memo dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure No. division. on the applicant was suspended and transferred to Mainpuri / ' Inquiry report, the appl ican t submitted his repre sentation date d 21 .05.2 012 / ( Anne xure No. 9 to the OA) . After cons ideri ng the inqu iry repo rt and the repre sent ation of the appl icant , the resp onde nt No. 5 as disciplinary auth ority awar ded the puni shm ent of redu ction of pay from Rs. 1403 0/- to the stag e of mini mum of the pay in pay band Rs. 5200 -202 00 + GP Rs.
2400 /- for next thre e year s with cum ulati ve effec t vide orde r date d 29.0 6.20 12 (Ann exur e A-10 to the OA).
3. It is stated by the applicant in OA that due to an earli er complaint fi\ed by him against respondent No. 6 with the resp ondent No. 3, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Aligarh Division, Aliga rh (respondent No. 6 to the OA) was annoyed with the applicant. Hen ce, by ignoring the explanation/representation of the applicant, resp ondent No. 5 at the instance of respondent No. 6 passed the orde r dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure No. 1O of OA) imposing punishment of reduction of app\icant's pay. Against the punishment order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Director Postal Services Office of the Post ' Master General, Agra (Respondent No. 4) on 30.07.2012( Annexure No. 11 to the OA). After considering the points raised in the appeal and after going through the facts of the case, respondent No. 4 as appellate authority , allowed the appeal by passing an order dated 06.02.2013, remanding back the matter to the Disciplinary .Authority for de-novo proceedings from the stage of submission of defence representation on enquiry report (Annexure No. 12 to the OA). Accordingly, the applicant made a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Post Office Jhansi Divi sion Jhansi as his defence statement to the enquiry report.
4. It is further stated in the OA that to his utter surp rise, the respondent No. 4 vide impugned order dated 28/31.10 .201 4 (Annexure A-1 to the OA) dismissed the applicant from service without givin g any opportunity of oral hearing or cross examination. Against the afor esaid dismissal order, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure No. 14) before the respondent No. 3, who disposed of the app eal vide impugned order dated 20.05.2015 ( Annexure No. 2 to OA) without taking into consideration the grounds raised by the applicant in the app eal dated 15.12.20 14 and without examining the merit of the case. Against the aforesaid orders the I\ I 4
------:r h Chi ef Pos t Mas ter General, UP . / . . ure No. 15), t e18 ·06 ·201 5 (An nex re on t filed a review petitionNbefo2) t d ' 1· app ,can ck . g thro ugh the fac s an o. d without goin Circle, Lu n ow (Re spo nde nt r can t's petition filed by the / wh ·thout application of mind an issed the app 11 201 5 und er Rul ed ' 30. · . e 29 . o w, tances of the cas e, dism rde r dat cm:ums ed o N 3 to the OA ), which IS also applicant by passing the imp ugn nexure o.
(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 (An impugned in this OA.
. licant has challenged the punishment ma inly on the following 5 The app ated 28/31. 10- 201 4 (Annexure grounds:- d t No 4 who is i. The impugned order d . ' d by the respon enapp lica nt The . the No. 1 to OA ) was passe t passed any not the disciplinary aut hon ty for . f the applicant has nohim for fresh ary authority or . d t disciplin . 0 order, although the cas e was rem1tte is against rules.
order. Hence, the impugned order The impugned order dated 28/ 31.10.2014 has not ..
er of re ducfion of pay which wa s set ''- rred to earlier ord refe aside in appeal.
eal ord er adm itte d iii. The respondent No. 3 in the app to the applicant, but his that documents were not supplied uiry reports, wh ich wa s decision was based on the inq unfair to the applicant.
any financial iv. The applicant has not committed of dismissal from irregularities, still the major punishment services has been imposed on him. In view of the matter, applicant is not the punishment awarded to the d against him_ commensurate with the charges levelle d the review v. The reviewing authority has rejecte lication of mind, application of the applicant without app the statement of relying on the inquiry report and prosecution witnesses.
unter Affidavit filed by the
6. The points mentioned in the Co ts-upon notice are, that due to misconduct, the applicant was responden under suspensio n dur ing 27.05.2006 to 28.02.2007 and he was placed I 5 O dated 12.1 .2006 . It · submi·tt~fu~ ,s followed and the disposed of as sheet vide memo I s have been . issued a chargeprescribed under ru applicant have been procedure as ec:1·ngs . t the a agams . proce 1 .
disciplinary pointing
er provisions of rules. rt CA) that the ap the
P . ( in sho r from
Counter Affidavittal Services, w hich is clea Hence,
. lated in the OA).
7 It ,s s . nt is Director Pos No. 17 to the t
~thority of the apphca 1987 ( Annexure . es Agra, (responden
a . nt letter dated 28.10. . ctor Postal Serv1c . based on the
appo1ntme assed by the Dire d the same ,s ant
the order was P ·1 as per rules an d other relev
N 4) as disciplinary authon Y nt of witnesses an pendents
o. . . report, stateme ed by the res
basis of the inquiry d evision orders pass p tal Assistant
peal an r . as os
records. Similarly,
1 ap ·tt d that while working t Offices the
It is subm1 e H d Pos '
are as per rues. . alien in different ea . urse of his
Saving Bank Control Organis . onsible employee m co
applicant proved himself to _be an ";~;:s by the different division_al -h~ad:
.
service. He has been penalised h 24 applicant was ru de and in-d1sc1phne s stated in the chargesheet. T e . h . 9 with his superiors and Govt.
a servant who was habitually m1sbe avm higher authorities.
8. The applicant filed reJomder, . . w here he .reiterated that prior ttoNissue in 6 of h t he charges ee , had filed complaints against the responden r o. t t connection with the pay fixation of the applicant. When th~ app ican me respon den t No • 6 in his office for his grievances, he did not hear the applicant and threatened him to face the consequences. Aggrieved With the response of the respondent No. 6 (Shri M. Abdali), the applicant under the compelling circumstances made a complaint against him Vide T elegarm dated 22.05.2006 to the respondent No. 3 i.e. Post Master General, Agra Region, Agra. Thereafter Shri M. Abdali called the applicant to his chamber on 22.05.2006 and threatened to withdraw his complaint, otherwise the applicant, may be suspended. The applicant again sent a complaint vide Telegram dated 22.05.2006 to respondent No. 3. Then Shri M. Abdali, the then Sr. Supdt, of Postoffices Aligarh Division Aligarh, placed the applicant under suspension Vide his office memo dated _ _ R 26 05 200 I9.6
It was also submitted in the rejoinder that the appointment of the I · applicant wa$ approved by Director Postal Service s in the CPMG office, Lucknow vide appointment dated 28.10.19
87. Hence, Director Po5 \a\ Services Headquarter UP Circle, Lucknow was the appointing authority of the applicant. So, respondent No. 4 was not competent and empowered to award major penalty of dismissal to the applicant as he was not the appointing authority. The applicant stated that there is no proof on the disciplinary proceedings file in support of the version of the respondent that applicant was habitually irresponsible. No specific case of irresponsibility of the applicant has been placed on record by the respondent.
10. The applicant in person and the respond ents were heard. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the con tentions in the OA as we\\ as the rejoinder affidavit and submitted that sinc e the applicant had filed comp\aint against one of his superior officer for non
-fixation of his pay, the app\icant has been chargesheeted. He also poin ted out tha t the imp ugn ed ord er dated 28/31 . 10.2014 (Annexure No. 1 to the OA) was not passed by the disciplinary authority, as the respondent No. 4 who passed this order, is not the disciplinary authority. He further submitted tha t the appe\\ate and revisionary .authorities have passed . . the . d .
apphcat,on of mind. impugne ord ers with out
11. Learned counsel for the respond ents submitted tha t . .
authority of the applicant was Director postal S . . the app om tmg CPMG L k ' uc now, hence, the respondent erv ices m the offi ce of the No 5 pertaining to the disciplinary pro ct· . pla ced the rec ord s cee mgs before the re passing the penalty order H I .
. e a so submitted tha t spo .
nde nt No. 4 for .
disciplinary proceedings the th . .
, au onties have com r d .
m d1s posa\ of the
of the rules, hence, the OA is r bl . . P ie with the pro visi ons ia e to be d1sm1ssed.
12. We have considered the subm· . the . materials available on recordiss,ons of bot h th d1scip\inary e par ties and per use d . · The sco pe of · d. .
proceedings is limited Court · JU tc1al rev iew of in different cases. Th H as, Per the de · · Chaturvedi V c1s1on of Hon 'ble Sup . e on ble Apex Cou rt .
s. Umon of India rem e
observed As und . in the cas e of B C
reported in 199 5 L .
er.- . .
aw Sui t (~C ) 101 5
7
;i:·
I
I
d'A ~~iew of the above legal position would establish that I . ISClp mary_ authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, ~;mg f~t-find,ng authorities have exclusive power to consider 8 . evi en~e With a view to maintain discipline. They are mves~ed. with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment k~ep,ng m view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The Hig~ Courtrrribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on ~ena/ty and impose some other penalty. It the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Courl/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases. Impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
······ ···········································
22. The aforesaid has therefore, to be avoided and I have no doubt that a High Court' would be within it jurisdiction to modify the punishment/penalty by moulding the relief, which power it undoubtedly has, in view of long time of decisions of this -~ou~, to which reference is not deemed necessary, as the position ts well settled in law. It may, however, be stated that this power of moulding relief in cases of present nature can be invoked by a High Court only when the punishment awarded shocks the judicial conscience."
In the case of Union of India Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia reported in 2007 Law Suit (SC) 950, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds that the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty. "
In the case of State of Megha/aya Vs. Mecken Singh N Marak reported in 2009 Law Suit (SC) 1935, the Hon'ble Apex Court also held as under:-
"A court or a Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. In the matter of Imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the 7 quantum of punish .
now well settled ment, but_,t has a lim_ited role to play. It is under Arf I8 that the Htgh Courts, ,n exercise of powers punish tc 226, do not interfere with the quantum of un. hment un/~ss there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The f 1 he ~ ment PUntshment imposed by the disciplinary authority or th ppe/late Authority unless shocking to the conscience of e court, cannot be subjected to judicial review."
13· In this case, the contentions/grounds of the applicant include the grou nd s like (i) failure to supply additional documents to him which affected his defence; (ii) the impugned order dated 28/31.10.2014 imposing the penalty of dismissal on the applicant has not been passed by the respondent No. 5 who is the disciplinary authority; (iii) and the punishment imposed on · him is not commensurate with the charges against the applicant.
14. Regarding non-supply of additional documents, it is seen from the inquiry report of the 10 (Annexure No. 8 to the QA) that the applicant had requested for additional documents which were approved by the 10 to be supplied as per the order-sheet dated 24.01.2007 as revealed from the inquiry report. But the said additional documents have not been supplied as indicated in inquiry report. This fact was informed by the applicant to the appellate and revisionary authorities through his appeal and revision petitions, but his contention was ignored by the said authorities. The revision order dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure No. 3 to the OA) has noted the following:
"(iv) As per report available on page-13 of enquiry report, the additional documents demanded by the charged official were not made available to him during enquiry. However, the charges were found to be proved against him during the enquiry. Hence his pleadings cannot be admitted fully."
In view of above, it is clear that additional documents approved by the 10 to be supplied to the applicant were not supplied to him and this fact was overlooked by the authorities. As per the ratio of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India (1986) 3 sec, 229 and State of UP V. C.S.Sharma AIR 1968 SC 158, it is essential to supply additional documents to charged officer, otherwise the T 9 charged officer will not get reasonable opportunity to defend the charges.
In the case of Syndicate Bank and Others vs. V. Venkatesh Gururao t(urati reported in AIR 2006 SC 2, Hon,ble Supreme Court has held 354 as under:
"18. In our view, non-supply of documents on w~ich the Enquiry Officer does not rely during the course of_ enqwry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent. It 1~ only. those documents, which are relied upon by the Enqwry Officer to arrive at his conclusion, the non-supply of which would cause natural justice . Even, then, the non-supply of those do~uments prejudice the case of delinquent officer must be establish~d by the delinquent officer. It is well settled law that the doctrme of principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be put in a strailjacket formula . It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the a/legation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice."
15. In this case, due to non-supply of additional documents the applicant's defence has been (3ffected as contended by the applicant. As per the ratio decided in the case of Syndicate Bank vs. V. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati (supra), non-supply of documents will vitiate the proceedings if these documents have been relied on by the 10 during inquiry in proving the charges against the applicant. It is seen from the pleadings of the parties or from the inquiry report or from the impugned orders, it is not clear whether additional documents requested by the applicant were relied on by the 1.0. or the disciplinary authority for inquiry or for proving the charges against the applicant. Applicant in his pleadings has made no such claim. Hence, the applicant has failed to prove that non- supply of these documents has vitiated the inquiry and the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
16. .
Regarding the contention of the applicant that the impugn ed order by the disciplinary authority i·e· respon dent No. 6 who . been passed has not had issued the cha.rg app1•,cant, the respondents have stated ~ authority for the applicant is .- . -
same rank as applicant's • I ;
er dated 28/31.10.2014 (Annexure : I t I I 10 !'JO- 1 to the OA) as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, this 1 ground/contention of the applicant is not acceptable.
17. Regarding the contention that the punishment imposed is not commensurate with the charges proved against him, it is seen that the disciplinary authority (respondent No. 5) had passed order for the same disciplinary proceedings against the applicant based on the same inquiry report vide order dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure No. 10 to the OA) for imposition of penalty of reduction of pay for next three years with cumulative effect. When the applicant filed appeal against this order, the appellate authority vide order dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure A-12 to the OA) remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing the order afresh. This order of the appellate authority dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure A- 12 to the OA) does not indicate any reason for reaching such a decision. Thereafter, on re-consideration of the matter, the authorities have passed the impugned orders dismissing the applicant from service. The impugned order dated 28/31.1o.2014 by the respondent No. 4 has been passed without considering of additional materials or facts in the case or without any additional evidence.
18. In this case, following charges were framed by respondents against the applicant:
Article-I "While working as PA SBCO Aligarh Shri Hari Mohan Gaur attended the Court of CJM, Civil Court Aligarh on following dates, in the case of 1607/2004 Hari Mohan Gaur V/S Avnish Kumar without obtaining the prior permission and leave from the Sr. Postmaster Aligarh.
20-01-05,31-01-05, 10-02-05,28-02-05, 11-03-05,23-03-05,23- 04-05,06-05-05, 13-05-05,24-05-05, 16-11-05,21-12-05, 12-01-06 & 03-03-06. He forgedly made entry in to attendance register as present on that very date. By such an act Shri Hari Mohan Gaur drawn the pay un-authorisedly and to outwit the department.
The said Shri Hari Mohan Gaur is alleged to have violated the following Rule 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (iii) if CCS (Conduct) Rule-1964.
Article-II While working as PA SBCO Aligarh Shri Hari Mohan Gaur attended the office late or deserted the office before time without permission of_Chief Supervisor SBCO Aligarh as well as the Sr. Postmaster Ahgarh on the following dates. n II l 28-11-05,29-11 Shri Hari M oh
-0 an official and contravened d 5 3(1 07 Ga )(i
-1 ur
ii) 2- 05 pr o~ 24 es
-0 4- 06. By such an act the sa himself irregular irrespo the following rules:-
of CC S (C on duct) Rules-196 .4
id nsible Rule 3(1 )(ii) an Vol.Ill.
Rule 62 of P&T Manual
Article-Ill
~aur on
CO Aligarh Shri Hari Mohan
While wo rking as PA SB
CP M G Lu ckn?w ag mst .th e
a_
ram to the
22-05-06 moved a teleg the SS POs Aligarh Is working
,n a
rh Alleg ing th at
SSPOs Aliga POs Aligarh in his teleg
ram to be
an ne r. He all eg ed SS
biased m . .
wh ile facts pr ov ed otherwise. G
commun al,
Sh ri Ha ri M oh an G au r tried to m1sg~1de CPM
It is alleged that fabricated information.
.
G Ag ra by pa ss ing
Lucknow & PM
an Ga ur ac ted in the manner of un-becommg
The Said Hari Moh
vt. se rvan t an d vio lat ed the following rules:-
a Go duct) Rules-1964.
1. Rule 3(1) (ii) of CCS (Con
Article-IV.
r
PA SB CO Aliga rh Shri Hari Mohan G~u
While working as the SS POs on 22-05-06 at 10
.30
the ch am be r of
entered in to
SSPOs Aligarh.
hrs and misbehaved with Gaur is alleged to have violated the n The said Shri Hari Moha following rules:-
Rule 3 (1 ) (ii) of CC S (Conduct) Rules-1964.
1.
Article-V. PA SB CO Sh ri Hari Mohan Gaur proves While working as nder in course on his service . He be a ha bitua l offe himself to es.
has been punished 24 tim an Gaur is violated the fo
llowing
ac t Sh ri Ha ri Moh
By such an
rules:- -1964.
11
of CCS (Conduct) Rules
Rules 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (ii)
m
ch ar ge s re lat ed to un authorized absence fro
e
19. It is seen tha! th MG and
with su pe rio r off ice r, communicating with CP office, misbehavior ils of the ap plica nt 24 tim es in the past. No deta punishment imposed on 22 .05. 20 06 to his superior have been plicant on misbehavior by the ap ent of ge ~h ee t ex ce pt m en tioning in the statem specified in the char y nt th re at en ed SS PO stating that if his pa plica imputation that the ap like his ne, the n he wi ll cr ea te trouble for the SSPO fixation is not do cant the ch ar ge of m isb eh avior against the appli predecessors. Regarding rt that in the office of SSPO on 22.05. Q n from the inquiry repo the one defence-witness, As hok d that on 22.05.2006 e of tH uest him to clear his applicant went to the offic file and SSPO replied th at he __ ii~ ed the applicant marked,(\ that the not consider the statem. ent .of ,- t -5 within his target. But the 10 did ,;cBn ' l'Pd fence witness Ashok Kumar Sharma as revealed from the inquiry J11e e mentions about the statement of r:port (Annexure A-8 to the OA), which o at the time of inquiry and he was als witness Lalji Ram who was expired ent cite d as a pro sec utio n witn ess. But the 10 has relied on his statem not ji liminary inquiry. The statement of Lal I probably recorded at the time of pre red by the 10, since he wa s not r Ram sho uld not hav e bee n con side the inquiry. Further, the concerned examined or cross-examined during to wh om the app lica nt had alleged ly misbehaved wa s not examined SSPO applicant to examine the concerned in the inquiry. in spite of request of the uiry as mentioned at Page 15 of the inq SSPO, which was refused by the 10 report.
nt was punished 24 times, no
20. Regarding the charge that the applica n conduct of the applicant hav e bee details about the nature of past mis of statement of imputation in sup por t indicated in the chargesheet or in the In the order of disciplinary authority. charges or in the inquiry report or in the ticle V), it is stated tha t bas ed on the inquiry report on this charge (Ar e to proved, but it will not be app rop riat exhibits in the inquiry, the charge is ut is of this charge. He nce , det ails abo punish the applicant again on the bas nt nature of pas t mis con duc t of the applicant and det ails of pun ish me the ers .
dents while pas sin g imp ugn ed ord have not been considered by respon the tement of imp uta tion of cha rge s for About this article of charge, the sta t. Th e any specific cha rge or mis con duc charge at Article-V, do not indicate is as und er:-
Article-V of the statement of imputation "Artic/e-V ri Hari Mohan . While working as PA SBCO Sh rse of h. G_aur pro ves cou himself to be a habitual offender in r times h:s service. He _has been punished 24 times. Twenty fou .has been given r chances to improve upon b disciP mary auth0 nty. He used the mercy of the dis · r Y y f conti~u_ous/y for further deterioration and m~ ~;n :ry m~ukhorit O admm1strativeldisciplinary action. c ery .
He has become a habitualfoffe'-nder. He him sel f is a cur se for the department and a de- mo tiva er offi cia ls in the mg act or for oth department."
.
P~r~sal of the sta tem ent of im ut of the a~~ ;r o~ charg_es rev eal s a bia s d1sc1plinary authority wh o franfect 9 s aga ins t the app lica nt, sin ce 13 ' u While working as PA SBCO Shri Harl M~han G_aur proves himself to be a habitual offender in cour~e of his service. He _has been punished 24 times. Twenty four times he . has been given chances to improve upon by disciplinary authonty. He used the mercy of the disciplinary authority continuouslY_ fo~ _fu~her deterioration and made a mockery of administratJveld1sc1plmary action.
He has become a habitual offender. He himself is a curse for the department and a de-motivating factor for other officials in the department."
Perusal of the statement of imputation of charges reveals a. bias of. the disciplinary authority who framed charges against the applicant, since some of the words in the said statement of imputation are not necessary to be furnished.
21 . In view of above discussions and taking into account the fact that the disciplinary authority for the sanie disciplinary proceedings had earlier passed a punishment order of reduction of pay for three years with cumulative effect, we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal from service by the respondent authorities is grossly disproportionate, considering the charges proved against the applicant as per the inquiry report. Therefore, in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed in paragraph 12 of this order, the impugned orders dated 28/31.10.201-4, 20.05.2015 and 30.11.2015 are liable to be set aside and quashed.
22. Accordin~ly, the impugned orders dated 28/31.10.2014, 20.05.201 S and 30.11.2015 in this OA are set aside and quashed and the case is .
remitted to the disciplinary authority (respondent No · 4) t o reconsider the facts of the case taking into account the . .
. inquiry report and the representations/reply of the applicant to the . .
inquiry report and then pass a fresh order in the matter as per the provisions of the CCS (CCA) R I 1965 by imposing any of the penalty as per rules other than th u es, dismissal and removal from service in the light of d" . e penalty of No costs. iscussions in this order.