Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
T L N Dora vs Steel Authority Of India on 23 December, 2022
1 TA 260/0031 of 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH
TA 260/0031 of 2012
Reserved on : 16.12.2022 Pronounced on : 23.12.2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member Judl.
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member Admn.
T.L.N.Dora, aged about 54 years, S/o-T.K.Dora, At present working
as Jr. Manager, Public Health, Town Service Deptt., Rourkela Steel
Plant, P.S.- Sector-5, Town- Rourkela, Dist- Sundergarh.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Rourkela Steel Plant represented through Managing Director,
Rourkela, PS- Plant Side, Dist- Sundergarh.
2. Managing Director, Rourkela Steel Plant, PS- Plant Side, Dist-
Sundergarh.
3. Mr. D.N.Bhatta, Chief Manager (O.D), Rourkela Steel Plant, PS-
Plant Side, Dist- Sundergarh.
4. Executive Director (P&A), Rourkela Steel Plant, PS- Plant Side,
Dist- Sundergarh.
5. Sri N.Pati, Chief of Protocol-cum-enquiry Authority, Rourkela
Steel Plant, PS- Plant Side, Dist- Sundergarh.
........Respondents.
For the applicant : M/s. S.K.Nayak-I, D.Nayak, B.K.Sahoo,
S.Biswal, T.Nanda, A.C.Baral,
Counsel
For the respondents: M/s. D.P.Nanda, Mr. P.K.Mohapatra,
M.R.Pati, R.K.Kanungo, Counsel
2 TA 260/0031 of 2012
O R D E R
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member(J):
By the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 03.10.2022, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench and renumbered as TA 31/2012 and listed for hearing.
2. As it appears from the record, the applicant while working as Executive in Town Services Department, RSP Rourkela, was issued with a charge sheet under Rule 25 of SAIL (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1977 [in short, Rules, 1977) vide memorandum dated 25.01.2002 containing the following allegations:
That Shri TLN Dora, while functioning as Jr. Executive(Vigilance) had obtained approval of the then ACVO on 13/14-02-97 for collection of files/documents pertaining to two particular job contracts related to SSM, as detailed in his note, for verifying his own source information that the referred jobs had not been executed at all but the contractor M/S Kumar Construction, in collusion with the authorities of SSM, had swindled about Rs 10.0 lakhs against both the works. Shri Dora, however, never put up any scrutiny report against this source information.
It was revealed subsequently that contrary to the approval, Shri Dora had collected documents pertaining to two other jobs relating to SSM and awarded to one M/S Kumar Construction, which were entirely different from those for which he had obtained approval to collect documents for scrutiny. Not only had Shri TLN Dora thus collected these documents unauthorisedly but he had also kept his senior officers and ACVO completely in the dark about the matter. Shri Dora never put up any report whatsoever in this connection. Further, Shri Dora had kept these files in his custody even after his transfer and
3 TA 260/0031 of 2012 release from Vigilance Department even though he had himself received information that payment to the tune of 10.0 lakhs was released to the firm M/S Kumar Construction, without jobs being executed. When, inspite of written instructions, Shri Dora did not hand over the files in his custody, the same had to be recovered by breaking open his locker in Vigilance Department to conduct further investigation. Subsequently it has been revealed that the source information of Shri Dora was correct.
Such willful inaction of Shri Dora in verifying the case and his non-cooperation in handing over important/relevant documents proves his ulterior motive and it has robbed the Company of the opportunity to take early action and bring the guilty to book in time. Shri Dora has therefore failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty thereby violating Rule 4.0(1) (i) and (ii) and has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company, thus committing misconduct under rule 5(5) of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeals Rules, 1977."
On 08.02.2002, the applicant submitted reply denying the allegation made against him in the charge sheet. Thereafter, the matter was inquired into by the IO appointed by the authority concerned and the IO submitted its report on 14.02.2003 (A/6) holding the charges as proved, copy of which was supplied to the applicant vide letter dated 03.09.2003 (A/7). The applicant submitted his defence to the report of the IO on 18.09.2003 (A/8). On consideration, the competent authority imposed the punishment vide order dated 04.02.2004 (A/9) as under:
"This has reference to Memo No. TS-220 dated 25.01.2002 and the subsequent enquiry that was 4 TA 260/0031 of 2012 conducted into the charges levelled against you. A copy of the findings of the enquiry committee was handed over to you in response to which you have submitted your representation dated 18.09.2003. I have gone through all the papers connected with this case and find that the allegations against you were that:
1. You did not collect/verify the file/documents for which you had obtained approval.
2. You collected some other files pertaining to some other jobs unauthorisedly which later turned out to contain several major irregularities.
3. You kept the documents collected by you unauthorisedly, in your custody even after your transfer and release from Vigilance Department.
4. You did not submit any report to the authorities in connection with the files collected by you.
As far as the allegations of collecting files unauthorisedly and not submitting any report is concerned, the same have been amply established in course of the enquiry. Your explanation that you were not specifically instructed to scrutinise the documents: and submit a report is not tenable. As far as unauthorised custody of the documents is concerned, I agree with the analysis made by the Inquiry Officer at page 6 of the Findings.
I, therefore, hold that the charges against you of violating Rule No. 4 (1) (i) and (ii) and committing grave misconduct under Rules 5 (5) of SAIL, CDA Rules, 1997 stand established. You committed the misconduct while working in Vigilance Department which amounts to abusing your position and therefore calls for major penalty of removal or dismissal. However, keeping in view your past records, I am inclined to take a lenient view and your basic pay of Rs. 13750/- in E-1 scale is 5 TA 260/0031 of 2012 hereby reduced to Rs. 10750/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Further, during the operative period of punishment, you shall not earn any annual increments of pay."
The applicant submitted appeal on 05.03.2004 (A/10), which was considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.05.2004 (A/11) as under:
"This has reference to your appeal dated 05-03-2004 addressed to Managing Director, Rourkela Steel Plant, the Appellate Authority against the imposition of punishment vide Order No.EN-2004-00569 dated 04-02- 2004.
Your appeal has been examined by the Appellate Authority along with all relevant documents and you are hereby informed that the Appellate Authority has upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Accordingly, your appeal has been rejected and the punishment awarded to you vide the above mentioned order stands."
Being aggrieved, the applicant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 12801/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on various grounds inter alia praying therein as under:
"....issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ quashing the findings of the enquiring authority (Annexure-6), the order of punishment (Annexure-9) and the order of rejection of appeal (Annexure-11)."
3. The respondents filed their counter in which it has been submitted that for the alleged omission and commission committed by the applicant, 6 TA 260/0031 of 2012 charge sheet was issued to him under Rule 25 of SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 vide memorandum dated 25.01.2002 (A/1). The applicant denied the allegation and the competent authority after considering the pro and cons of the matter appointed IO to inquire into the allegation made in the charge sheet. The IO conducted the inquiry as per rules and by giving adequate opportunity to the applicant to defend his case, submitted his report establishing the charges made against the applicant. The copy of the report was supplied to the applicant, who submitted his defence and the Disc. Authority after due application of mind imposed the punishment which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the allegation of the applicant that the punishment was illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the evidence is not correct. As such, there is no ground to interfere in the matter. The applicant has made wild allegation and frivolous attempt to de-stabilize the findings of the IO. The applicant was working in the vigilance department of the Company and, as such, was holding a position of trust and a high degree of diligence and honesty was expected from him which the applicant seriously failed by acting in a manner unbecoming on the part of an employee. Since the allegation was proved against him, after holding due inquiry in accordance with rule, no leniency was called for but still the DA was considerate enough in imposing a lesser punishment even though the misconduct called 7 TA 260/0031 of 2012 for imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. Insofar as the allegation that the applicant was imposed with the punishment without affording him personal hearing is concerned, it is submitted that rule does not provide for affording opportunity of hearing by the AA. In sum and substance, the case of the respondents is that since the proceedings were initiated and concluded strictly in accordance with rules and complying with the principles of natural justice, judicial interference on the punishment imposed on the applicant after the IO held the charges as proved is uncalled for. Hence, according to the respondents, this matter being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has also filed rejoinder more or less reiterating the stand taken in the main petition.
5. In course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has reiterated the grounds taken in support of the relief as under:
i) The applicant submitted application dated 03.07.2002 requesting calling of record of job contract mentioned in the first table in imputation of misconduct but the IO rejected such petition and reached the conclusion on conjecture and surmises; which is bad in law;
ii) The disciplinary authority without due application of mind to the materials on record and oral evidence 8 TA 260/0031 of 2012 adduced on behalf of the parties, based on perverse findings of the Inquiry Officer, passed the of punishment, which is not sustainable in the eye of law;
iii) The Disc. Authority without considering the defence of the applicant imposed the punishment in an unreasoned order, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority by an order without meeting and answering the points raised by the applicant in his appeal, which are not sustainable.
iv) The negligence alleged cannot be attributed to the applicant since the authorities like Sr. Manager, and ACVO are not silent spectators so as not to act upon the records placed before them. Instead of performing their own duties the blame has been thrown upon the applicant to victimize him. The materials on record would show that they made the applicant a scapegoat. Thus, the order of punishment is unjust and improper since the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the allegation made against him.
v) According to the authorities concerned, due to absence of the Applicant on 9.3.1998, they opened the room and the cabinets by the help of lock smith and retrieved the 9 TA 260/0031 of 2012 records. Such statements are false and fabricated since as per the statement of M W-2 to the question No-19 in cross-examination the documents were not in the room No. 65 but in a different room. Such statement was also supported by Mr. Prasad, D W-2 in his cross-
examination. Thus, the finding of the IO that records were under the custody of the Applicant and he did not submit the same before the authority is not correct and based on which the finding given by the IO that the charge is established is based on no evidence.
Further, to strengthen the arguments that the court and tribunal are competent to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated and concluded with imposition of punishment contrary to rules without complying with principles of natural justice or is based on no evidence or without supplying the documents, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 10, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 182, Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 713, and UOI & Ors. Vs. S.K.Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 and emphatically submitted that the charge 10 TA 260/0031 of 2012 sheet and punishment imposed being without any evidence, without granting adequate opportunity, without supplying relevant documents, without any evidence and for that matter the evidence as such, based on which, no prudent person can reach such conclusion, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra in a bid to torpedo and pulverize the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the judicial interference/intervention in judicial procedure by court or tribunal is no more res integra. The DA is the sole judge of facts and the appellate authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and finding on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal as has been drawn by the applicant in the instant case. The court and tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority in a disciplinary proceedings and to reappreciate the evidence to interfere in the proceedings, which have been initiated and concluded by following rules and principles of natural justice. In the present case, the allegation in the charge sheet was serious in nature, which was proved by the IO after due inquiry in which the IO granted the applicant adequate opportunity to defend his case and upon analyzing everything has established the charges 11 TA 260/0031 of 2012 in a well reasoned and speaking report. The DA has also considered the entire records and took a lenient view by imposing a lesser punishment. The AA after considering the matter in its entirety upheld the order of the DA. As per the law, if the AA agrees with the reasoning and finding of the DA, it is not required to grant the delinquent personal hearing or any reasons thereof. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi & Ors in W.P.(C) No. 6822/2011 disposed of on 05.08.2022, Ld Counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of this OA.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the pleadings and citations placed in support thereof.
8. In the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 10 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"The findings, recorded in a domestic enquiry, can be characterised as perverse if it is shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence on record or is not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could have come to those findings on the basis of the that evidence. This principle was laid down by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Sree Rama Rao. 1964 2 LLJ 150 = AIR 1963 SC 1723 = 1964 (3) SCR 25, in which the question was whether the High Court, under Article 226, could interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry. This 12 TA 260/0031 of 2012 decision was followed in Central Bank of India vs. Prakash Chand Jain, 1969 2 LLJ 377 (SC) = AIR 1969 SC 983 and Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors. 1976 Labour & Industrial Cases 4 (SC) = AIR 1976 SC 98 = 1976 (2) SCR 280 = (1976) 1 SCC
518. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Others.
AIR 1984 SC 1805 = 1985 (1) SCR 866 = (1984) 4 SCC 635, it was laid down that where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be rejected as perverse. It was also laid down that where a quasi-judicial tribunal records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are his mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated."
9. In the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 182, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under:
Since the decision of this Court in Kraipaks case [A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India :1969 (2) SCC 262] one golden rule that stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. What, however, does this doctrine exactly mean? Lord Reid about four decades ago in Ridge v. Baldwin & Ors. (1964 Appeal Cases 40) very succinctly described it as not being capable of exact definition but what a reasonable man would regard as a fair procedure in particular circumstances who then is a reasonable man the man on the clapham omnibus? In India, however, a reasonable man cannot but be a common man similarly placed. The effort of Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin (supra) in not 13 TA 260/0031 of 2012 attributing a definite meaning to the doctrine but attributing it to be representing a fair procedure still holds good even in the millennium year. As a matter of fact this Court in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v.
Union of India & Ors. [1973 (1) SCC 380] upon reliance on the attributes of the doctrine as above stated as below:
8. The second question, however, as to what are the principles of natural justice that should regulate an administrative act or order is a much more difficult one to answer. We do not think it either feasible or even desirable to lay down any fixed or rigorous yard-stick in this manner. The concept of natural justice cannot be put into a straight jacket. It is futile, therefore, to look for definitions or standards of natural justice from various decisions and then try to apply them to the facts of any given case. The only essential point that has to be kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably.
10. In the case of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 713 the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under:
In Apparel Export Promotion Council V. A.K. Chopra [ 1999(1) SCC 759] which has heavily been relied upon by Mr. Gupta, this Court stated:
"The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact- finding authorities."
14 TA 260/0031 of 2012 (Emphasis supplied) The appellate authority, therefore, could not ignore to exercise the said power.
The order of the appellate authority demonstrates total non-application of mind. The appellate authority, when the rules require application of mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was bound to assign reasons so as enable the writ court to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to do. The expression 'consider' is of some significance. In the context of the rules, the appellate authority was required to see as to whether (i) the procedure laid down in the rules was complied with; (ii) the Enquiry Officer was justified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him; and (iii) whether penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was excessive.
In R.P. Bhatt V. Union of India [ (1986) 2 SCC 651] this Court opined:
"The word "consider" in Rule 27(2) implies "due application of mind". It is clear upon the terms of Rule 27(2) that the Appellate Authority is required to consider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; (2) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record; and (3) whether the penalty imposed is adequate; and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc. the penalty, or may remit back the case to the authority which imposed the same. Rule 27(2) casts a duty on the Appellate Authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof.
There is no indication in the impugned order that the Director General was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance had
15 TA 260/0031 of 2012 resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. We regret to find that the Director General has also not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied his mind to the requirement of clause (c) of Rule 27(2) viz. whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non- compliance with the requirements of Rule 27(2) of the Rules, the impugned order passed by the Director General is liable to be set aside."
11. In the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. S.K.Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that principle of natural justice requires that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the charge sheeted employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the same.
12. It is a settled position that the power of judicial review of the Court/Tribunal is an evaluation of the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the 16 TA 260/0031 of 2012 disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, judicial interference/intervention is warranted. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. Thus, on receipt of representation in response to the report of IO, the disciplinary authority will apply its mind to it, take into account any extenuating or mitigating circumstances pleaded in the representation and finally determine what should be the penalty that would be commensurate with the circumstances of the case. The requirement of recording of reasons by every quasi judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the concerned authority. The punishment order should be reasoned and speaking and must be passed after considering entire material on record.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836, held that "reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They 17 TA 260/0031 of 2012 should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, has explained that reasons are necessary links between the facts and the findings recorded in the administrative orders, which visit a party with evil civil consequences. In absence of reasons such an order cannot be permitted to stand.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 11 SCC 519, has held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and, without the same it becomes lifeless.
16. The Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 has been pleased to hold that "Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject- matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570 observed that the disciplinary authority 18 TA 260/0031 of 2012 as also Appellate Authority to indicate reasons in support of its order when the delinquent is imposed with punishment having civil consequence.
18. A mere running of the eyes over the order of DA and AA in the instant case would exemplify and demonstrate total non-application of mind. The appellate authority, when the rules require application of mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised by the applicant, was bound to assign reasons so as enable the Court/Tribunal to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to do. The expression 'consider' is of some significance. In the context of the rules, the appellate authority was required to see as to whether (i) the procedure laid down in the rules was complied with; (ii) the Enquiry Officer was justified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him; and (iii) whether penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was excessive. This view is also well fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & and others, Appeal (civil) 7645 of 2004 disposed of 5th April, 2006.
19. Insofar as the order passed by the DA is concerned, as the requirement of passing speaking order has not been dispensed with, the DA having not considered the circumstances and passed a non-speaking order, 19 TA 260/0031 of 2012 which is in violation of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, 2009 (1) SCALE 294.
20. Insofar as appellate order is concerned, at that time applicant had all the documents and had taken a detailed defence with various contentions in his appeal, yet the appellate authority has not bothered to pass a speaking order, dealing with those contentions, which is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, wherein their lordship have been pleased to hold that an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all.
21. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of disciplinary authority under Annexure-A/9 and the order of the Appellate Authority under Annexure-A/11 cannot be sustained, which are set aside accordingly. Although, the consequence of setting aside of the said orders, the matter would have been remitted back to the disciplinary authority for 20 TA 260/0031 of 2012 consideration afresh on merit, but having regard to the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant way back in the year 2002 and that the applicant was aged about 54 years when writ petition was filed by him in 2006 and by now he must have been aged about 70 years, we refrain ourselves from doing so. Sequel to the quashing of the impugned orders, the Respondents are hereby directed to grant the applicant all consequential service and financial benefits. The entire drill shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. In the result, this TA stands allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) MEMBER(ADMN.) MEMBER (JUDL.) Rk/PS