SUNIL KUMAR K Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 29th August 2005 passed by the Central Administrative tribunal, Bangalore bench in Original application No, 47/2005 which was dismissed by the Tribunal, The petitioner is the applicant in the said original application,

(2.) THE challenge in the original application before the Tribunal was against the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 by way of disciplinary action against the petitioner. As per Annexure B5 order dated 18th July 2002 passed by second respondent a penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. Against Annexure B5 order the petitioner filed Annexure B6 appeal before the first respondent who is the appellate authority. After considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, the first respondent issued annexure B7 memorandum dated 26th May 2004 proposing to enhance the penalty and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalty awarded to him should not be enhanced. In reply to Annexure B7 show cause notice, petitioner submitted Annexure B9 explanation. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent passed Annexure B10 order dated 17th august 2004 imposing the penalty of withholding of two increments for two years without cumulative effect. Thereupon the petitioner filed the original application before the tribunal questioning the validity of Annexure B5 order passed by second respondent and annexure B10 order passed by first respondent. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the first respondent has no power to enhance the penalty imposed by second respondent and that even a minor penalty like withholding of increment could not have been imposed on the applicant without conducting an inquiry. The Tribunal rejected both the contentions and dismissed the original application. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dismissing the original application, applicant in the original application has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE first contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the first respondent while considering the appeal against the order passed by second respondent has no power to enahnce the penalty. According to the learned counsel, Rule 23 of The employee's Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 deals with consideration of appeal against the order passed by original authority imposing the penalty. Rule 23 is extracted hereunder for convenience.