CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER Vs. K GURURAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT was working as Assistant Director (Rande) in the office of the first petitioner herein-Chief General Manager (Karnataka Telecom Circle), during 2000-2001. First petitioner issued an Articles of Charge dated 16-4-2001 to the respondent charging him as follows: sri K Gururajan while functioning as Assistant Direct (R and E) o/o Chief General Manager, telecom, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore has illegally participated in the "hunger Strike" on 30-10-2000 in front of the Office of the Chief General Manager Telecom, Karnataka Circle, bangalore in violation of Rule 7 (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. By the above act, Sri K Gururajan while functioning as Assistant Director (Rande) O/o Chief general Manager Telecom, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore has exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant contravening Rule 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964"

(2.) RESPONDENT filed objections to the charge memo on 26-4- 2001 denying that he committed any misconduct, but admitted having participated in the hunger strike. He submitted that he applied for 2 days casual leave for 30th and 31st October, 2000 on personal grounds; that prior permission was obtained to avail casual leave from the competent authority; that subsequently it was converted to one day's casual leave for 30-10-2000; and that on that he participated in a peaceful non-slogan shouting hunger strike. He further contended that his participation in me hunger strike after availing duly sanctioned Casual Leave was not illegal. He submitted that 'admitting Facts' is different from 'admitting guilt' and his action was not in violation of Rule 7 (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The respondent also requested that an enquiry be held and his casual leave records for the year 2000 and the correspondences in regard to the hunger strike by the Telecom Employees Association on 30-10-2000 be made available to defend himself in such enquiry.

(3.) THE Disciplinary Authority (first petitioner) did not consider it necessary to conduct an enquiry into the charge, as the respondent admitted participation in the hunger strike. Taking note of the fact that respondent had availed casual leave on 30-10-2000 and participated in the strike and the past good record of service, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 23-5-2001 and imposed the punishment of withholding of next increment for a period of three years from the date on which it becomes due with a condition that during that period, respondent will not earn any increment and on completion of the penalty period, the order will not have effect of postponing future increments.