UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR VIRDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, we are compelled to observe that the present 'petition of motion' has left us a little perturbed. Do we regard the instant case as a classic example of the petitioners' lack of knowledge in regard to conduct of disciplinary proceedings as well as the procedure that governs writ proceedings before a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or is it that something else behind the screen has been withheld from us to shield an individual or individuals? Upon due consideration, we feel that it would be prudent not to waste time on this perturbing phenomenon and wise to proceed on the basis of strict legal principles.

(2.) Under challenge in the writ petition is a judgment and order dtd. 6/2/2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, Mumbai (hereafter, "the Tribunal", for short) in Original Application No. 597 of 2011 instituted before the Tribunal by the sole respondent herein (hereafter, "the charged officer", for short). The petitioners were the respondents in such original application.

(3.) Following imposition of penalty in disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the charged officer had approached the Tribunal. Grievance voiced by the charged officer was that despite the inquiry officer having held the charge of demand of Rs.4.00 lakh (Rupees four lakh) towards illegal gratification as 'not proved', the disciplinary authority, turning a blind eye to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 [Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra], proceeded to impose penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage till his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 28/2/2013, with further direction that he will not earn increment during the period of such reduction with cumulative effect. The ground on which the charged officer succeeded before the Tribunal was that the disciplinary authority, while imposing penalty, did not record the tentative reasons for his disagreement with the finding of the inquiry officer and also did not give the charged officer an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with such finding of the inquiry officer. The Tribunal quoted paragraph 19 of the decision in Kunj Bihari Mishra (supra) and proceeded to dispose of the original application with the following order: