PARTHASARATHI BANERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present petitions to assail the common order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in OA No.1775/2014, 2483/2014 and 1705/2018.

(2.) O.A. No. 1775/2014 was preferred by the petitioner to assail the memorandum dated 30.09.2013 whereby disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. From the impugned order, it appears that O.A. No. 2483/2014 was preferred by the petitioner assailing the rejection of his request by the inquiry officer denying him the right to appoint a legal practitioner to defend him in the inquiry proceedings. O.A. No. 1705/2018 had been preferred by the petitioner to seek a declaration that he retired as Scientist "H" with upward revision of his pay band and grade pay he received as the Director, NISTADS with consequential reliefs. He sought several other reliefs in this O.A. in relation to his monetary benefits.

(3.) The Tribunal held in respect of the challenge to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, that it was the prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority to initiate the same and that the petitioner could not claim that his rights were violated on account of any alleged irregularity in the manner in which the 1st stage advice of the CVC was obtained. So far as the petitioner's grievance that certain documents had not been furnished to him is concerned, the Tribunal observed that Disciplinary Authority would be under obligation to furnish the list of documents and the list of witnesses. If the Disciplinary Authority has not provided any document to the delinquent employee, it would not be in a position to rely upon the same. Consequently, O.A. No. 1775/2014 was dismissed.