VIRENDRA KUMAR GARG Vs. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT II OPPOSITE SHAHEED PARK, DELHI ROAD MEERUT, UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for quashing the impugned orders from Annexures A -1 to A -5, i.e., the inquiry report dated 20.5.2005, disagreement note dated 19.1.2006, a second disagreement note dated 23.1.2007, disciplinary authoritys order dated 7.10.2010 and appellate authoritys order dated 14.6.2011, with a further prayer that the respondents may be directed to refund the reduced pay and allowances with arrears and also to grant him promotion to the higher post when his juniors were granted promotion in the year 2008 -2009.

(2.) In order to decide the controversy, few facts may be noticed. The applicant was initially appointed as Data Entry Operator (DEO) in Customs & Excise Department on 10.5.1993, which post was subsequently re -designated as Tax Assistant. The applicant was issued memorandum of charge sheet dated 30.6.2004, thereby proposing to hold the inquiry against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The gravamen of the charges against the applicant was that while posted in Divison Moradabad, he had in an unauthorized manner associated himself in an act of unauthorized detention of one Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, R/o 236 Lajpat Nagar, Mordabad at Moradabad along with one Shri Sanjay Chaudhary, Inspector and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sepoy detained Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal in an unauthorized manner in the evening of 7.12.1999 and kept him in their personal custody for about 2 hours. It was further alleged that the applicant was posted as DEO in Central Excise Division Moradabad and it was neither part of his duty nor were any express directions/orders given to him in this regard by his supervisory officer or the Divisional in -charge. Further, the applicant had not informed either to his supervisory officer or to the Divisional In -charge about the incident or his act of association in this incident of detention. The inquiry officer was appointed in the matter and he, in his inquiry report dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure A -1), held the article of charges proved against the applicant to the extent of exceeding his jurisdiction without any express directions/orders of the competent authority. However, it was further recorded that there are no evidences suggestive that the applicant was having any dishonest or malafide intentions with any ulterior motives while acting in such a manner and ultimately the recommendations were made to take the lenient view against the applicant. The disciplinary authority on receipt of the inquiry report disagreed with the findings by the inquiry officer vide memo dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure A -2) on the ground that the applicant did not inform his controlling officer and as the checking by Inspector was illegal, the applicant was asked to represent against the disagreement note.

(3.) It is further averred by the applicant that he represented against the said disagreement note vide his representation at Annexure A -11 but instead of taking any final action on his representation, the disciplinary authority issued another disagreement note dated 23.1.2007 (Annexure A -3) improving upon the ground of disagreement, which was mentioned in the earlier disagreement note at Annexure A -2. The applicant filed representation against the said disagreement note but ultimately the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 7.10.2010 passed reasoned and detailed order thereby imposed penalty of reducing his pay by four stages from Rs.11200/ - to Rs.9660/ - in the pay band of Rs.5200 -20200 with grade pay of Rs.2400/ - for a period of four years with effect from the date of issue of the order. The appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of disagreement note was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 14.6.2011. It is these orders, which are under challenge before this Tribunal.