VINAY KUMAR BASSI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Xxx XXX XXX

(2.) The Applicant, Shri V. K. Bassi was awarded the penalty of removal from service by an order dated 20-2-1986 passed by Controller of Defence Accounts at Chandigarh. THE applicant's appeal was rejected by the Controller General of Defence Accounts at New Delhi. THE applicant's plea is that the order of removal is bad in law as he was not afforded full opportunity to defend himself, the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer was contrary to the CCS (CCA) Rules, there was no specific rule to impose the punishment of removal from service, the appellate order is not a speaking order and there was. no "wilful absence from duty" on behalf of the appl icant.

(3.) The respondents bad taken the plea that the entire proceedings were in accordance with the rules. The applicant was afforded full opportunity to contest the matter. The applicant was absent from duty. He neither reported for duty nor submitted any information. He had absented himself unauthorisedly from 1-4-1983 to 11-8-1983, 168-1983 to 13-12-1983 and further from 19-12-1983 onwards. He had disobeyed the orders of the superiors. The applicant wished to appoint Shri A.K. Suri, Auditor of LAO, Jhansi, as his defence assistant. The applicant at that time was posted at Chandigarh and the inquiry was also conducted at the same station he was advised to appoint defence assistant from any offices situated at Chandigarh. The applicant was given an ample opportunity to defend bis 38 case and when he did not attend the inquiry (except on two dates), the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry ex-pane. Both the penalty order and the appellate order were valid and did not suffer from any error of law. At the time of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents took a plea that the 0 A. was premature as the applicant bad not exhausted all the remedies. He cited the provisions of Section 29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. This plea has not been taken in the reply of the respondents, but has been raised in the arguments. The provision of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act refers to any appeal preferred or representation made by such person. Admittedly, the applicant bad availed of the remedy of appeal and had come only after its disposal.