S P SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 18th December,1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners. Though the petitioners have filed separate petitions, the common features in these petitions, which alone are relevant for dealing with the question involved therein can be culled out from the petition filed by the petitioner S.P. Saxena.

(2.) A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner S.P. Saxena, Scientist "C" in Defence Electronics Application Laboratory, Dehradoon for contravening the provisions of Rule 3(l)(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. At the conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner from the Charge No. 2. As regards the Charge No. 1, the Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner's indirect involvement in the trade and business was partly proved. On receipt of the report from the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, to whom the report was submitted, did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the Charge No. 2 framed against the petitioner. He, therefore, imposed the penalty of removal from service after holding that both the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner challenged the order of removal from service by filing a petition before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Not being satisfied with the dismissal of the petition by the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner was that the Disciplinary Authority, who had disagreed with the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, could not have come to adverse conclusion without giving him an opportunity of being heard and the order of removal passed against him was liable to be quashed. This contention did net find favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard before imposition of the penalty of removal from service.