R.L. JAKHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed by unsccessful original applicant under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against order, dated 12th May, 2003 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has upheld the order of punishment, dated 22nd March, 2002 (Annexure P-2), inflicting upon the petitioner punishment of reduction of pay by three stages in his present pay sacle for a period of three years with further direction that the petitioner would not earn increments of pay during the said period and on expiry of the said period the reduction was to have the effect of postponing his future increments.

(2.) Facts in brief, may be noticed so as to put the controversy in legal slots. The petitioner was selected by the Union Public Service Commission (for brevity 'the UPSC) and was posted as Group 'A' Officer on the post of Assistant Chief Accounts Officer on 24th August, 1987. He was promoted as Chief Accounts Officer/IFA in the year 1991 and remained posted as such in the office of Telecom District Manager, Hisar with effect from 20th November, 1991 to 15th September, 1993. He was further promoted as Director (F&A)/IFA and was transferred to Ludhiana as such.

(3.) On 19th February, 1996, a charge memo (Annexure P-3) was served upon him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, 'the Rules') by the Disciplinary Authority, namely, respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner was confronted with five charges relating to the period from 20th November, 1991 to 15th November, 1993 when he was posted as Chief Accounts Officer-cum-Finance Officer in the office of Telecom District Manager, Hisar. On 12th March, 1996, he submitted his reply (Annexure P-4) stoutly denying all the articles of charge levelled against him. He also expressed his desire to be heard in person. A departmental inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer vide his Inquiry report, dated 28th July, 1999 (Annexure P-6) held that none of the five charges levelled against the petitioner, vide charge memo, dated 19th February, 1996 (Annexure P-3), could be proved. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. However on 2nd August, 2000, the Disciplinary Authority served upon the petitioner a communication purported to be a 'dissenting note' (Annexure P-7) and expressed its disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was called upon to make representation against the said communication. It would be interesting to read the communication purporting to be dissenting note (Annexure P-7):