KHAGEN CHANDRA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant assail the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year from the date of next increment due without Cumulative effect and the order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal. We have heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. S. Bora, learned Addl. C.G.S.C. for the respondents. Mr. Sikdar, learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 19.8.2009 inflicting punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set -aside. He argued that even the order dated 7.8.2010 dismissing his appeal is also liable to be set -aside have been passed without application of mind. To elaborate his argument he submitted that applicant was not working as Supervisor, there are total eight people collectively working there, therefore, the applicant cannot be singled out and held responsible for their fault. He further argued that the Appellate Authority without considering his ground of appeal have rejected the same by passing non speaking order dated 7.8.2010. Therefore, both orders are liable to be quashed.

(2.) PER contra, Mrs. S. Bora, learned Addl. C.G.S.C. for the respondents started from where the applicant stopped. She submitted that in the grounds of appeal applicant himself have admitted that he was working as Supervisor -cum -Opener. Therefore, the applicants trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court and wanted escape from his liability. She then urged that the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is self speaking and having passed after considering the gravity of the charges. Lastly she prayed for the dismissal of the O.A.

(3.) ON the basis of the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and from perusal of records, the question arises for consideration is that what is general idea and scope of judicial review in the matters pertaining to the disciplinary inquiry? In this connection it is necessary to point out that the question in issue is not res -integra, rather it has received consideration of Hon'ble Apex Court on numerous occasion. It would be useful to refer some decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court herein after: -