MANGOBINDA SAMANTRAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Mr. Jena, Learned Counsellor the Petitioner & Mr. Das, Learned Central Government Counsel. In this writ application, the Petitioner prays to quash the final Order Dated 15.07.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-3), show cause notice issued by the Appellate authority for enhancement of punishment (Annexure-5) & the order of the Appellate authority terminating him from service (Annexure-8).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner, while working as Constable under CISF Unit, N.T.P.C. Kaniha, was issued with a charge-sheet (Annexure-1) for gross misconduct, dereliction of duty & assault to senior officers.. As the Petitioner in his reply denied the allegations, enquiry proceeding was initiated & Opp. Party No. 5 was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are proved. The Disciplinary Authority On receipt of the enquiry report after following due procedure passed final order on 15.07.2000 (Annexure-3) imposing penalty of reduction of pay by two stages, i.e., from Rs. 3425 to Rs. 3275 in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with immediate effect & the Petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction & that on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Aggrieved by the order of punishment the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority (Opp. Party No. 3). While considering the appeal the Appellate authority issued show-cause notice (Annexure-5) to the Petitioner proposing enhancement of penalty. After receiving the said show cause notice the Petitioner preferred a revision (Annexure-6) through proper channel but the same was not accepted by the Unit Officer on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition before the Appellate authority for extension of time to file show cause. But, the Appellate authority instead of extending the time for filing show cause passed the order of dismissal from service which is impugned in this writ application.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order enhancing the penalty suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the same has been passed by the Appellate authority without giving adequate opportunity to the Petitioner to defend himself. He further submits that on the face of the impugned order it would be apparent that the Appellate authority before passing the same has not applied his mind to the documents placed before him.