SRI SATYANANDA NAYAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Order Dated 20.11.2009 under Annexure -21 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing to interfere with the original and Appellate orders of punishment under Annexures -14 and 18 respectively and dismissing O.A. No.441 of 2006, the Petitioner has filed this writ application.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that while working as Draftsman in Division -I, No.11 Drawing Office (SEC) Survey of India, the Petitioner faced a disciplinary proceeding in which the following two chargers were framed : "(a) That the said Shri Satyananda Nayak while functioning as Draftsman Div.1 during the period December, 1998 submitted a false declaration about the death of his second wife Smt. Pramila Kabita Nayak and based on the death declaration of his second wife the said Shri Satyananda Nayak asked the office viz. No.11 D.O.(SEC) to delete the name of the: said wife from his service records while the said wife as per his own statement after seven months was still reported to be living. Thus, the said Shri Satyananda Nayak acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant. (b) That the said Shri Satyananda Nayak while functioning as Draftsman Div.1 in the office of No.11 Drawing Office (SEC), survey of India, Bhubaneswar has committed an act of insubordination in a series of his letters addressed to O.C. No.11 Drawing office (SEC), Surveyor General of India by making vituperative and derogatory remarks against O.C. No.11 D.O.(SEC) and the Estate Officer and thus, displayed a conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant." The memorandum along with article of charges and a list of documents by which the charges were proposed to be proved was served on the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted his written statement before the disciplinary authority (Opp. Party No.2) in which, with regard to charge No.1 he explained that the words "passed away" which he used for his wife -Pramila Kabita Nayak in his letter dated 11.12.1998 only meant that she has gone away and not that she was dead. With regard to the second charge he replied that whatever correspondences he had made with the authorities could have been avoided in case his letter dated 11.12.1998 would have been truly interpreted or at least clarification would have been asked from him by providing an extract or a copy of the said letter as per his request dated 06.01.1999 and 05.02.1999. Hence, there was no trace of vituperative and derogatory remarks against O.C. No.11 D.O. (SEC) and the Estate Officer as alleged' in the charge. Not being satisfied with the written statement of the Petitioner, the disciplinary authority appointed one Mr. P.V. Srinivas, Superintendent Surveyor as the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges and one Baikuntha Sahoo, Officer Surveyor as the Presenting Officer. After making inquiry, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion, that both the charges were proved against the Petitioner and accordingly submitted his inquiry report (Annexure 10) to the disciplinary authority. A copy of the inquiry report was served by letter under Annexure -9 asking the Petitioner to submit his representation, if he so desired, to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the letter. The Petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure -11 questioning the propriety of the procedure adopted in the inquiry and commenting upon the conduct of the Inquiry Officer, the details of which we may advert to at a later stage. By Order Dated 27.09.2001 the disciplinary authority passed order of punishment which was challenged by the Petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.102 of 2002. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. on 06.12.?004 directing as follows:

(3.) IT is contended in this Writ Petition that although the above grounds were urged, the Learned Tribunal without considering the same in proper perspective dismissed the original application.