JAI BHAGWAN CHHACHIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Original Application is directed against an order dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service upon the applicant, order of the appellate authority rejecting his appeal and the order dated 28.11.2011 of the Revisional Authority rejecting his review petition. The applicant has also sought quashing of order dated 07.04.2010 passed by respondent no. 1 ordering holding of de novo enquiry from the stage of appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting officer.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the applicant joined service in the respondent -department as an Auditor on 25.07.1979. He was, thereafter, promoted as Accountant in the year 1989. He was on deputation with Haryana State Lotteries Department as Sales Officer from 01.05.1990 to 30.12.1994 and from 26.11.1996 to 04.06.1997. While on deputation, the applicant was served with a charge -sheet dated 22.04.2003 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as The Rules), for allegation of misappropriation and embezzlement of Government money to the tune of Rs. 44,14,053.36. Inquiry Officer was also appointed to enquire into the charges in the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) ON 10.06.2010 the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Inquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 03.02.1011, which was also supplied to the applicant on 10.02.2011 asking him to submit his representation, if any, which he did on 25/28.02.2011. Based upon the Inquiry Report and the representation, the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of power under Rule 11(ix) of the Rules imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon applicant vide its order dated 13.04.2011. Aggrieved against the above order the applicant filed a statutory appeal on 16.05.2011, which was rejected on 28.11.2011, which too was challenged by the applicant by filing a Revision Petition under Rule 29 of the Rules, which also was rejected vide order dated 12.03.2013. Hence this O.A. challenging the validity of the aforesaid orders.