LAWS(APH)-2012-9-29

M.RAMACHANDER RAO Vs. MEMBER (FINANCE), NEW DELHI

Decided On September 10, 2012
M.RAMACHANDER RAO Appellant
V/S
MEMBER (FINANCE), NEW DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner while working as Accounts Officer in the office of Telecom District Engineer, Ongole was imposed the penalty of withholding increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.01.1997. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The appellate authority taking a lenient view reduced the duration of the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority from two years to one year by order dated 30.06.1999. Challenging the said order, the writ petitioner filed O.A.No.980 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench contending inter alia that the appellate authority committed a grave error in disposing of the appeal without giving him an opportunity of hearing as required under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules'). It was also contended that the appellate authority had disposed of the appeal without application of mind to the relevant factors and moreover he had earlier dismissed his appeal against the adverse entries made in the service record which itself shows that his appeal was not decided with open mind and therefore the impugned orders passed by both the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be sustained.

(2.) The Tribunal below had rejected all his contentions and accordingly dismissed the O.A. by order dated 22.06.2001. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 22.06.2001 in O.A.No.980 of 2000 and to quash the same and further to set aside the orders dated 30.06.1999 and 27.01.1997 passed by the respondents 1 and 2 respectively.

(3.) It is contended by Sri K.V.Manikya Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even in the case of a minor penalty, conducting an enquiry is mandatory where the charges are denied by the delinquent. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied upon O.K.Bhardwaj v. Union of India and others, 2001 9 SCC 180.