D PRISEKUTTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the petitioner was working as Telephone Mechanic, the 4th respondent Divisional Engineer, Telecom (DET), BSNL, Chengannur, issued disciplinary proceedings on the basis of Ext.P5 charge. As per Ext.P5 charge memo, it is alleged that, the petitioner has committed misconducts coming under Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 17 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that while he was working as a Telephone Mechanic, one Susamma filed O.S,No. 316/1999 before the Munsiff Court, Chengannur, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 57,000/- with interest from the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte and as the petitioner could not appear in the execution stage, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment from 22.5.2001 to 21.6.2001. On the basis of that, charge has been issued against the petitioner as aforesaid. After an enquiry and on the basis of Ext.P8 enquiry report, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and he was awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement from service by the disciplinary authority. Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority , the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate forum. The appellate authority also concurred with the findings entered by the enquiry officer and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. Consequently the appeal was dismissed fay Ext. P10, Further, the petitioner had filed Ext. Pl1 review. The reviewing authority also dismissed the review application by Ext. P12 order.

(2.) The petitioner challenges Exts. P8, P10 and P12 orders before this Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is vitiated by the violation of the principles of natural justice and the findings are without any evidence. Further it is contended that the enquiry officer has not appreciated the evidence adduced at the enquiry on legal principles. Lastly the counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment awarded by the enquiry authority is excessive,

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed sworn ing for and on behalf of the respondents and relying on the counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the enquiry officer has considered and appreciated the entire evidence and finally concluded that the misconducts alleged against the petitioner have been proved. Further it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in the light of the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, it is proved that the petitioner has committed misconducts alleged against him and hence orders under challenge require no interference by this Court.