UNION OF INDIA Vs. D.N.N.KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent (for short 'the respondent') was working as Store Keeper in the Indian Navy at Visakhapatnam. A charge memo was issued to him on 29.12.2000, framing three articles of charges. He submitted an explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with that, the disciplinary authority i.e., the 3rd petitioner herein, appointed Sri D. Muni, CTO (A&E), CINA (V) as an Inquiry Officer. After conducting enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 30.06.2003, holding that the charges framed against the respondent are proved.

(2.) The respondent submitted a representation, stating that the enquiry was not conducted, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. He pleaded that apart from the witnesses that were examined by the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer has summoned some of the ship's representatives as additional witnesses and he has straight away examined them. The 3rd petitioner verified the entire file and found that apart from the irregularity pointed out by the respondent, there were certain other deficiencies, such as, failure to maintain daily order sheets, recording of rulings on objections, non-marking of documents, etc. On that basis, the 3rd petitioner passed an order, dated 06.04.2004, directing further enquiry, in terms of Rule 15(i) of CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965.

(3.) The 2nd Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 14.05.2007 'confirming' that all the charges framed against the respondent are proved. Taking the same into account, the 3rd petitioner passed an order, dated 17.12.2008, imposing the penalty of reduction by three lower stages, for a period of three years in the existing pay scale. The appeal preferred by the respondent was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 23.06.2010. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.1212 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, the 2nd respondent (for short 'the Tribunal'). He pleaded that the 3rd petitioner was not satisfied with the conducting of enquiry by the 1st Inquiry Officer and, accordingly, the 2nd Inquiry Officer was appointed and, still, the same mistakes have crept into the report. It was urged that the 2nd Inquiry Officer committed nothing more than confirming the findings recorded by the 1st Inquiry Officer. The petitioners opposed the O.A., by filing a reply.