SARDAR AMIR SHAIKH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, presently working as Senior Account in the Office of the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, has challenged the charge memorandum No. PTN/CAO/Disc/2000/3 dated 3rd July, 2000, the Note of Disagreement No. PT/DGM(A)/Disc. Pr/SAS/2001 -02/14 dated 2.11.2007, the order of punishment No. PT/DGM(A)/Disc/SAS/99 -2000 dated 10.1.2008 as well as the Appellate Order No. PT/GM(HR/OP)/Disc/SAS/2008 dated 4.6.2008. The facts of the case is that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant after issuing the Charge Memorandum dated 3rd July, 2000, for violating Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article -I of the Charge Memorandum in Annexure -I is set out herein below:

(2.) THE Inquiry Officer held an enquiry and came to a finding that the department has failed to prove the charge against the applicant. The then Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and awarded punishment of Censure, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The applicant challenged the order before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 544/2005, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The applicant thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 1447/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The Hon'ble High Court held that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to meet the reasons of difference of opinion of the Disciplinary Authority from the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Hence the writ petition was disposed of with the following direction:

(3.) THE applicant filed his representation against the Note of Disagreement. In his representation against the Note of Disagreement, the applicant submitted that the point of disagreement is not related with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge/article of charge. A conduct which is not misconduct is outside the purview of disciplinary jurisdiction. While dealing with the observations of the Disciplinary Authority regarding "with whatsoever intention" the applicant stated that in his letter dated 2.7.1999 he already stated that he failed to keep the compass box out of the examination hall. There was no mala fide intention in carrying the compass box containing chits in the examination hall. The charge sheet dated 2.7.2000 was invalid and not tenable under the law.