VIKASH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dtd. 19/2/2019 passed in O.A. No./050/00143/2016 and M.A. No./050/00256/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'CAT, Patna Bench').

(2.) The petitioner while working as Assistant Auditor Officer he was placed under suspension on 8/8/2013 and he was charge-sheeted on 24/10/2013 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'Rules, 1965'). The petitioner denied all the seven charges framed against him while submitting reply on 4/11/2013. The disciplinary authority revoked the order of suspension on 4/11/2013. However, he was not satisfied with the petitioner's reply dtd. 4/11/2013 on seven charges. In the result, Inquiring Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. In the meanwhile, on 4/11/2013 common proceedings were initiated under Rule 18 of Rules, 1965 to hold enquiry against the petitioner and two others namely Shri Hemant Kumar, Sr. Audit Officer and Shri Bhopal Kumar, Sr. Auditor. The Inquiring Officer has ignored the common proceedings order dtd. 4/11/2013 (Annexure P-4) and proceeded to hold individual inquiry against petitioner and two others namely Shri Hemant Kumar and Shri Bhopal Kumar. The Inquiring Officer submitted report while holding that charge one to six were partly proved and charge number seven was not proved. On receipt of Inquiring Officer's report, disciplinary authority proceeded to disagree with the Inquiring Officer's report insofar as not proved charges and proceeded to issue show cause notice. Disagreeing with the Inquiring Officer's report and not proved charges proceeded to issue show cause notice (second show cause notice) on 21/7/2014 for which petitioner had submitted his reply on 4/8/2014. Thereafter, disciplinary authority proceeded to impose penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years and during the currency of aforesaid penalty the petitioner is not entitled to increments which are due to him.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of penalty dtd. 25/8/2014 petitioner preferred memorandum of appeal before Appellate Authority on 2/10/2014 and it was rejected on 6/5/2015. The petitioner filed O.A.No. 050/ 00143/2016 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's original application, hence, the present petition.