PRAMOD PRABHAKAR PATIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Rule.) Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 3.12.2015 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner and upholding the orders of the disciplinary, appellate and the revisional authority.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Porter on 10.4.1989 and was promoted to the post of Senior Porter in the year 1992. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Cabin Master in the year 1997. On 21.7.2000, a notice was served on the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he did not furnish the details of his previous service, despite reminders. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner for not producing his past service record. The petitioner tendered the explanation and submitted that the past service record of the petitioner as a casual labourer was submitted to the screening committee at the time of his appointment in the year 1989 and since the petitioner had misplaced the documents, he could not produce them. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on an examination of the material on record, the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner after holding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charge levelled against him. After the lapse of about five years from the preparation of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer, the vigilance department conducted an enquiry and forwarded a communication to the disciplinary authority in respect of its disagreement with the report of the enquiry officer. The Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, vide communication dated 22.1.2010, informed the disciplinary authority that the disagreement note should be properly worded and it should not be reflected from the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority that action is taken by the disciplinary authority at the behest of the vigilance department. After the communication of the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer was received by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.6.2010 asking him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner in view of its disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner pointed out to the disciplinary authority, by his explanation, that the disagreement note travelled beyond the charge levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice as, according to the disagreement note, the uncle of the petitioner was one of the members on the Screening Committee and the screening was irregular. It was pointed out that such was not the charge levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice or the departmental enquiry, so also there was no reference to the letter of Ms. Mona Singh, dated 5.6.2000 in regard to the misconduct of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, however, by the order dated 11.11.2010, dismissed the petitioner from service without any compassionate allowance. The petitioner challenged the said order before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Similar was the fate of the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authority. All the orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner.