SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in the present petition has challenged the order dated July 29, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 751/2001.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that petitioner who is a Charge-man Grade-II working in the establishment of respondent No. 3 was served with a chargesheet on December 11, 1999 under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCS (CCA) Rules'). The petitioner submitted a representation against the said chargesheet and requested the inspection of certain documents as well as the report on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued which was permitted by the respondents. The petitioner denied the charges in toto and had requested the authorities to hold a regular inquiry, but the authorities without conducting an inquiry, imposed a minor penalty of withholding one increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect i. e. from order dated March 26, 2000 only on considering the representation of the petitioner. No reasons have been mentioned by the authorities in the order impugned, either for imposing the punishment or for not holding an enquiry. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authorities by order dated September 11, 2000. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order imposing penalty by filing a petition before the Tribunal. The petitioner also filed a review petition which is dismissed by order dated December 28, 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated July 29, 2004, hence this petition.

(3.) The only issue raised by the petitioner before this Court is that in view of the Rules 16(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. the respondents were bound to hold a departmental inquiry, as the petitioner had denied all. the charges in toto and in any case the authorities should have formed an opinion after due application of mind as to whether an inquiry was necessary or not.