UMED RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 1.12.2004. He filed reply to the same on 1.1.2005. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held the charges leveled against the petitioner to be established beyond any doubt for violation of Rule 3(1) and (III) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred as the "Conduct Rules"). The petitioner was permitted to make a representation within a period of 15 days. He filed representation on 14.9.2006. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of future increments of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect vide order dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure A-12).

(2.) Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that though the petitioner has been served with charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "CCS(CCA) Rules"), but major penalty of withholding of increments of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect has been imposed by the disciplinary authority on 21.12.2006. In other words, her submission is that once the proceedings had been initiated against her client under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, only the minor penalties mentioned/provided under Rule 11 of the CCS(CCA) Rules could be imposed. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the issuance of Annexure A-12, dated 21.12.2006.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.