O.A. No. 220/ vs The Comptroller & Auditor General Of ... on 20 July, 2011
9. We may, in this connection also, refer to a similar view
taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in
O.A.247/10 and connected cases dated 22.9.2010 -
S.V.Santhoshkumar & others Vs. The Comptroller and
Auditor General of India & others and two other decisions
of this Tribunal in O.A.768/10 and connected cases dated
15.11.2010 - Krishnadas A.K & others Vs. The
Comptroller and Auditor General of India & others and
O.A.872/09 dated 15.3.2011 - Santhosh Kumar S.V. Vs.
The Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General & others. In
O.A.247/10 and connected cases decided on 22.9.2010 this
question was considered and there are observations which
also supports the same view as we have taken that the
discretion is vested on the Disciplinary Authority to hold an
inquiry before imposing a minor penalty not covered by (1-A)
of Rule 16. It was held in these two batch of cases,
however, after examining the particular facts of these cases
that decision not to hold an inquiry is vitiated as
circumstances warrants holding of an inquiry. In other
words, it was held that the decision not to hold an inquiry in
the given set of facts is arbitrary and on that ground the
order imposing punishment was set aside leaving open the
right of the employer to proceed to hold an inquiry and take
appropriate action, if so advised.