J. HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition arises out of disciplinary action taken by the respondents imposing penalty of removal from service as a disciplinary measure on the petitioner. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner was an employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan since 1977. During the year 1999-2000, the petitioner was posted as Upper Division Clerk at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Tura in the State of Meghalaya. The petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 2/3-8-2000 under the provisions of Rule 14 of Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short "CCA Rules") and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 alleging that the petitioner forcibly entered into the principal's office around 11.30 a.m. on 24/5/2005 in a fully drunken state and thereby committed misconduct and violated Rule 3(i)(ii)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. The petitioner submitted his reply. In the reply. the petitioner admitted that when he entered the office of the principal, he was in a drunken state, but, denied the charge of forcible entry into the Principal's office and offered his unconditional apology for consumption of alcohol and requested the disciplinary authority to take sympathetic view of the matter and forgive him. The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Guwahati, the 3rd respondent herein, passed the order dated 31-8-2000 removing the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure for the alleged misconduct.

(3.) The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order of the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules to the Dy. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal by his order dated 3/9-7-2001. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the above two orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents instituted A. No. 770/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") Jabalpur Bench, camp at Bilaspur. The Tribunal having opined that the petitioner has admitted the misconduct alleged against him and therefore, conducting enquiry was not necessary and that he was also warned for similar misconduct in the past, refused to grant any relief to the petitioner, and accordingly by its order dated 24-9-2003 dismissed the A No. 770/2001. Hence, this petition.