ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working on the post of Head Constable at U.T. Chandigarh was inflicted the penalty of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect vide order dated 15.5.2008. Such order was upheld by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities. The petitioner impugned the order of penalty of imposition of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect in terms of filing Original Application No. 541-CH- 2010 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (herein after referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 7.6.2011 has dismissed the Original Application. Resultantly, the present writ petition.

(2.) A complaint was filed by one Ms. Mamta Sharma alleging that the petitioner had married her still keeping her in the dark that he was already married. On the basis of such complaint a preliminary inquiry was held, which was followed in terms of initiating a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet, his reply was considered and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a regular inquiry. The Inquiry Officer furnished a report, wherein the allegation of second marriage could not be proved beyond doubt but the petitioner was held guilty of the charge of having extra marital relations with the complainant. Accordingly, on 12.2.2008 a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the extreme penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and the disciplinary authority upon considering the same imposed the punishment of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect by reducing the proposed punishment which was for dismissal from service. The petitioner availed of his statutory remedies in terms of filing an appeal as also the revision, wherein the punishment of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect was affirmed.

(3.) Vide impugned order dated 7.6.2011 the Tribunal has found no infirmity in the order of penalty passed against the petitioner and has accordingly dismissed the Original Application.