LAWS(CA)-2007-3-70

SHRI TARLOK SINGH S/O LATE SHRI CHANAN SINGH, ASSTT. SURVEYOR OF WORKS, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) (THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING AND THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO)

Decided On March 12, 2007
Shri Tarlok Singh S/O Late Shri Chanan Singh, Asstt. Surveyor Of Works, Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio Appellant
V/S
Union Of India (Uoi) (Through Secretary Ministry Of Information And Broadcasting And The Chief Engineer, Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel.

(2.) BY virtue of this OA, an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 28.08.2002 inflicting upon the applicant a major penalty of withholding of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect on the allegation of non -approval on the specification of the Goods requisitioned and proposing overpayment and acceptance of Alternator with lesser capacity has been assorted. Applicant has been proceeded against in a major penalty. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had held the applicant guilty of the charge. After having sought second advice of the CVC and on consultation with UPSC, a major penalty was imposed upon the applicant, which is being assailed in this OA.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contention and stated that applicant having failed to produce any DWs, there has been a valid compliance of R.14(18) of the R.ibid and reasonable opportunity having already been accorded to him, no prejudice is caused. Shri Arif stated that as PE report has not at all been taken into consideration by the enquiry officer, no infirmity has cropped up in due procedure. As far as CVC's second stage is concerned, learned Counsel would contend that the instructions, which are prospective in nature, as issued on 28.9.2000, would not extend to the applicant as in the present case, the enquiry report was submitted on 26.5.98 and the applicant had submitted his explanation on 2.2.99. Learned Counsel would also contend that the decision in Lalit Kumar's case has already been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and, as such, no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid decision. In so far as imposition of punishment is concerned, learned Counsel would contend that the same is in accordance with R.14 of the R.ibid.