Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(OA-1849/12) 2.2 The above charge-memo was issued to him by the Director, Institute of Himalayan Bio-Resource Technology (IHBT), Palampur under whom he was then working. IHBT is one of the units of CSIR. Pursuant to the said charge-memo, a disciplinary enquiry was held against the applicant. The DG, CSIR, vide his Annexure P-1 (Colly.) order dated 14.01.2004 imposed the following penalty on the applicant:-

"I have carefully considered the Review Petition dated 03.04.2007, of Sh. J.S. Mishra, AEE, ESD, CSIR Hqrs against the penalty imposed upon him vide Order No.6-11(60)/2002-EIII dated 14.01.2004.

It has been made clear, inter-alia, in the Review Petition that there has been a serious infirmity in the proceedings as regards the various authorities, which considered the Inquiry Report. I find that as per the extant Schedule of Disciplinary Authorities, the JS (A) ought to have been the Disciplinary Authority and the DG, CSIR, the Appellate Authority. But the order dated 14.1.2004 was issued by the DG, CSIR as the Disciplinary Authority. It is seen that the report had not been further considered by the correct Disciplinary Authority.

Now therefore, in view of the procedural infirmity as stated above, I hold that the Inquiry Report needs to be submitted again to the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Joint Secretary (A), who shall further consider the Inquiry Report along with all other relevant documents, apply his mind and pass further orders in this case."

2.4 In view of the ibid order dated 18.02.2008 of Vice President, CSIR, in which it was held that the DA for the applicant was Joint Secretary (Admn) and not DG, CSIR, the DA, namely Joint Secretary (Admn) vide his order No.6-11(60)/2002-E.III dated 28.01.2009 passed the penalty order. The operative part of the said order reads as under:

(OA-1849/12)

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the applicant to say that he has not been getting the benefits of financial upgradation and career advancement under MANAS. She said that the applicant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 21.07.1995, then to Superintending Engineer on 21.07.2000 and then to Senior Superintending Engineer on 21.07.2005. She also controverted the allegation of the applicant that the applicant has suffered financial loss on account of the initial punishment order dated 14.01.2004 passed by the DG, CSIR, who was not the competent DA for the applicant then. She said that in his order dated 28.01.2009, the competent DA, namely Joint Secretary (Admn), CSIR has imposed the same penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect and with a stipulation that during the period of reduction, increments will not be drawn and on expiry of the period of penalty, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay of applicant. She said that the ibid order of the DA was challenged by the applicant in appeal before the AA, namely, (OA-1849/12) DG, CSIR, who vide order dated 05.01.2010 has modified the order of the DA to the extent that reduction of pay by three stages will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay of the applicant. The learned counsel also stated that the punishment already undergone by the applicant in terms of order dated 14.01.2004 passed by the DG, CSIR, who was not the concerned DA, by way of the financial loss has since been compensated to him after passing of the order of the Revisional Authority dated 14.07.2011, whereby the penalty has been reduced to that of 'Censure'. She vehemently argued that no benefit under MANAS has been denied to the applicant. She drew our attention to clause 6.10(3) of MANAS, to say that the actual monetary benefit is to accrue to the applicant only from the date following the date of imposition of the penalties. She said that the Revisional Authority order is dated 14.07.2011, whereby the penalty imposed on the applicant by the DA and AA has been reduced to that of 'Censure', all monetary benefits in terms of MANAS have been given to the applicant. Concluding her arguments, the learned counsel (OA-1849/12) submitted that there is no substance in the OA and as such, the OA is liable to be dismissed.