N S RUPRAH Vs. MANOJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authorities in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and rejecting the appeal and mercy appeal of the petitioner, petitioner who is presently more than 71 years of age and who is suffering from brain tumour (cancer) and is in the terminal stage, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service is Annexure P/1 dated 8.10.1993; the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is Annexure P/2 dated 29.6.1994; and, the mercy appeal of the petitioner is rejected vide Annexure P/3, on 24.3.1995.

(3.) HOWEVER, holding that the reply and explanation submitted by the petitioner and the other employees like Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, were not satisfactory, a Departmental Inquiry was ordered and vide Annexure P/13 dated 21.3.1992 one Shri V.I. Velayudhan, Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi was appointed as an Inquiry Officer and one Shri Dhirendra Kumar, Sub Inspector working with the Central Bureau of Investigation, was appointed as the Presenting Officer on behalf of the bank. The inquiry officer fixed the inquiry vide notice - Annexure P/14 on 24.4.1992, for consideration of petitioner's defence and his submission to the charge-sheet made on 12.2.1992, and it was held that on the said date petitioner had appeared and accepted all the charges levelled in the charge-sheet and, therefore, the inquiry was closed. The proceedings of the inquiry in this regard i.e.... the notice of the inquiry - Annexure P/13; the proceedings held on 27.4.1992 - Annexure P/14; the so-called order-sheet prepared on 27.4.1992 vide Annexure P/15; the admission of the petitioner dated 27.4.1992 was taken on record by the inquiry officer and the inquiry closed by the inquiry officer mainly on the ground that the petitioner having accepted the charges levelled against him, no further inquiry is to be held. HOWEVER, after holding the inquiry to be closed, it is seen from the records that a detailed inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer and based on the report submitted, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure P/1 on 8.10.1993. Departmental appeal and the mercy appeal filed by the petitioner having been rejected vide Annexures P/2 and P/3, on 29.6.1994 and 24.3.1995 respectively, petitioner challenged the action before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2724/1995 and when the matter came up for hearing after about 8 years on 3.1.2008, it was brought to the notice of this Court that in the case of the petitioner a discriminatory attitude was adopted in as much as petitioner has been dismissed from service whereas in the case of other three employees - Shri R.K. Tiwari, Shri N.K. Gopal and Shri H.D. Pandey, only a punishment of censure/warning or stoppage of increment was issued and, therefore, there has been discrimination in the matter of imposing punishment. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of imposition of punishment. On reconsideration, the claim having been rejected again vide Annexure P/27, on 29.3.2008, this writ petition has been filed.