NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal'), Principal Bench, New Delhi in the Original Application No. 586/2011 and the order dated 25.04.2016 in Review Application No. 132/2012.

(2.) The petitioner submits that he had applied for leave due to ill health of his father to defend his various court cases instituted against him by his wife on false and baseless allegations. He had submitted leave applications from time to time. However, by charge memo dated 08.01.2007, the respondents had initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner on account of unauthorised absence. Penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the pay scale of 4000-6000 was imposed vide order dated 02.03.2007. The petitioner was served with the second charge memo dated 30.06.2008 on the allegations of wilful absence. After receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner filed an application for providing relevant documents. However, it is claimed that the documents were not supplied. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed without application of mind. The Inquiry Officer who was required to hold an inquiry as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 did not follow any of the provisions as provided in classes (11) to (23) of Rule 14. It is further stated that the petitioner was not even served a notice for defending the allegations levied upon him nor was he allowed to inspect documents. The petitioner was provided with a copy of the inquiry report dated 31.03.2009. Aggrieved by the said report, the Petitioner approached the Inquiry Officer and requested that all the order sheets while conducting inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 ('Rules') be provided to him. However, documents were not supplied. Thereafter, by the order dated 09.07.2009, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner the extreme penalty of removal from service. The petitioner submitted an appeal dated 27.07.2009 to the Appellate Authority but the same was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2009.

(3.) The petitioner then filed OA No. 3203/2009 which was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2010 with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh as per Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Appellate Authority has failed to decide the appeal as directed by the Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition for directions to pass an order strictly in compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2010. The Contempt Petition was closed by the Tribunal by taking note of order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority.