PREM SHANKER SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant seeks the following main relief:

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant was issued a charge -sheet dated 06.11.1991 when he was working as Wireman. The applicant denied the charges and demanded a detailed inquiry which was setup by appointing authority vide letter dated 03.01.1992. The inquiry could not be completed till 2001 due to change of Presenting and Inquiry Officers, so the applicant filed OA No. 156/01 which was disposed of on 09.02.2001 with a direction to the respondent No. 2 for concluding the disciplinary proceedings within a period of 04 months. The Disciplinary Authority failed to finalize the disciplinary proceedings within the prescribed time and the Inquiry Officer submitted its inquiry report on 13.07.2001 to the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 as proved and charges No. 4 and 7 as not proved. The applicant submitted his representation dated 11.09.2001 against the said inquiry report and the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2001 (Annexure A -1) retiring the applicant compulsorily from service. The applicant filed Writ Petition No. 430/2002 before Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital which was transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 04/08. The Circuit Bench of this Tribunal sitting at Nainital disposed of TA No. 04/08 vide order dated 26.04.2010 granting liberty to the applicant to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 08.11.2001 and respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the appeal within a period of 03 months. The applicant submitted an appeal dated 18.05.2010 which was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 01.12.2010 (Annexure A -2). It has been stated that the charges against the applicant were petty in nature which did not warrant the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement from service and the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charges. It has been alleged that the Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry proceedings as per rules and the order of Appellate Authority is cryptic in nature having been passed without application of mind and is without jurisdiction as it has been passed after the lapse of 04 months prescribed by this Tribunal while disposing of the TA No. 04/08 on 26.04.2010.

(3.) IT has further been submitted that the applicant used to involve himself in unwanted activities, misbehaved with his colleagues and stopped them for doing their duties and made hindrances in government work of his colleagues. It has been stated that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant for various complaints and he was given sufficient opportunity of hearing and the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings was due to change of presenting and inquiry officers. It has also been submitted that the respondents were not aware of filing of O.A. No.156 of 2001 and the copy of said O.A. was also not supplied to the respondents and an ex parte order was passed by the Tribunal on 09.02.2001 directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry proceedings within four months and submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 13.07.2001. All the findings of inquiry officer were found absolutely impartial, fair and lawful and the Disciplinary Authority while considering the reply to the inquiry report submitted by the applicant, passed the order of penalty of compulsory retirement on 08.11.2001. It has been submitted that the charges framed against the applicant were of serious in nature and the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the applicant is absolutely legal and based on facts and evidence.