KUSUM LATA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 10.12.2010 (P-4) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), holding that the punishment of removal from service imposed upon petitioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity because in a departmental enquiry, the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges of absence from duty. In the absence of any violation of the process of holding of enquiry or mandatory provision of law the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and duly accepted by the punishing authority cannot be faulted. Once the enquiry is held in accordance with the procedure established by law then the quantum of punishment is not to be interfered with because it is within the domain of the employer unless it shocks the conscious of a reasonable man. See Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, 2004 4 SCC 560.

(2.) The only argument raised by Mr. H.S. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been removed by an authority, which is subordinate to the appointing authority. According to the learned counsel, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Deputy General Manager/ TDM as per order of delegation of powers under CCS (CCA) Rules (A-4). Referring to the provision under the heading Ministerial Staff in selection grade, it has been argued that it is only the Deputy General Manager or TDMs who could be regarded as the appointing authority of the petitioner.

(3.) We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel, however, we are unable to accept the same. In that regard, there is complete answer given by the Tribunal in its order dated 10.12.2010 (P-4), as is evident from the following observations: