K P SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) on 4 August 1999, dismissing the petitioner's original application (OA No.825/94), against the award of punishment of dismissal from service is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) In November 1980, the petitioner was appointed as an Auditor in the Defence Accounts Department and was posted in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Funds), Meerut. He was transferred to New Delhi on 29 June 1992. Vide order dated 17 August 1992, he was placed under suspension pending inquiry and charge memo was issued to him on 26 June 1993 for his alleged acts of misbehaviour, misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience, alleging that : (i) on 27 July 1992 he went to the Section in drunken state to produce the application for leave for his absence, enclosing the medical certificate and when one of the officers wanted to reconcile the discrepancy about his ailment shown in the medical certificate, he insulted her by throwing papers and shouting at her using intemperate language (ii) on 28 July 1992, in drunken state, he threatened to kidnap an officer and his family and also challenged the staff in the corridor attracting the attention of the staff and disrupting the normal functioning of the office; (iii) on 12 August 1992 he disobeyed the orders of the superior officer and tried to enter the nearby Accounts section and (iv) he was detained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours on 6 July 1992 in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC, in Meerut.

(3.) The petitioner was granted an opportunity to reply to these allegations, which he did on 28 June 1993 denying all the allegations. Not being satisfied with the reply and invoking the powers vested in him under Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules'), the Disciplinary Authority ordered dismissal of the petitioner from service. Petitioner's appeal against the said order was unsuccessful. Aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter to the Tribunal but again without any success. Hence the present petition.