ABUL MUZAFFAR KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Original Application is preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs: -

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, the reply was filed and through reply, it is indicated that the applicant was served with the major penalty charge sheet on the basis of vigilance check. It is also submitted by the respondents that applicant while working as Senior Booking Clerk at Saharanpur, involved in a vigilance case. As per the said charge sheet, it is mentioned that he demanded and accepted Rs. 100 excess over and above the actual printed fare on three 2nd Mail Express tickets of Darbhanga. Apart from this, it is also pointed out that he produced Rs. 138/ - excess in Government cash with unconvincing explanation. Not only this, it is also alleged in the charge sheet that on seeing vigilance team coming towards him, he removed some cash from his Government cash also not -cooperated in check. On the basis of the said charge sheet, the enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted. The applicant also participated in the enquiry and there is no illegality in conducting the enquiry. The applicant was also served the copy of the enquiry report and he submitted the reply. Along with the reply, the applicant denied the charges leveled against him. Considering the reply of the applicant and the report of the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment which was subsequently enhanced by the Appellate Authority. The suo -moto notice was issued by the Revisional Authority was stayed by this Tribunal vide order dated 22.2.2008. Therefore, no order was issued by the Competent Authority till date. The learned Counsel for respondents also submitted that scope of judicial review in regard to disciplinary proceedings is not called for and only the procedural irregularities can be looked into by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE applicant through Rejoinder reply, once again vehemently argued that it is apparent from the enquiry officer's report that he came to the conclusion that the charges stands proved against the applicant without any sufficient material and this fact was again submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that when a request for change of enquiry officer was made, then the authorities are under obligation to pass an order indicating the reason if they are not accepting the request for change of the enquiry officer. But in the instant case, no such reason was assigned for not accepting the request of the applicant for change of the enquiry officer. It is further submitted that the respondents in a very casual manner rejected the representation of the applicant for change of the enquiry officer and it is also directed to the applicant to be present before the enquiry officer. Apart from this, it is also submitted by the applicant that there was no occasion for the Revisional Authority to suo -moto issue a show cause notice and proposing to pass an order of removal and again alleged that the entire action is taken on the dictate of the Vigilance team and vigilance team does not have any role to advise the Disciplinary Authority etc.