B R MANGALUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was subjected to charge-sheet under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter "the said Rules, 1965") on the ground of alleged misconduct. A memorandum was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the said Rules, 1965. It is alleged against the petitioner that while functioning as J.T.O. in charge of 57 exchange scrapping on 13th December, 1991, he tried to move scrapped cables in lorry No. MRL 9749 after 17.00 Hrs. unauthorisedly against the standing instructions on loading and transportation, without any valid gate pass by making an additional entry in the Goods Collection Memo dated 13th December, 1991 of M/s. Super Fast Carriers. The statement of imputations

(2.) The Disciplinary Authority by a detailed order dated 19th September, 1994 accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The Disciplinary Authority has also assessed the evidence before passing the penalty order and has considered the evidence on record which is at Exhibit-G to the petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the said order. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter carried the matter further before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench by way of Original Application No. 1034 of 1996. The Tribunal, by its order dated 31st May, 2001, has allowed the said application of the petitioner partly. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner in connection with imposition of penalty but directed the department to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion at the time when his junior was promoted in 1998. The Tribunal also directed the respondents to

(3.) Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there was no evidence against the petitioner for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed the misconduct for which he was charged and that this being a case of no evidence, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty is required to be set aside. Learned Counsel further submitted that even though the enquiry proceedings were initiated under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1965, which is for minor penalty, the ultimate penalty order withholding two increments with cumulative effect is in the nature of major penalty.