HAFIZ-ULLAH MIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, while working as Lines Inspector (O) GMT, Srinagar, Kashmir, and posted as S.D.E. (Cable Construction) Srinagar, was proceeded against under Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1964, for alleged shortfall of stores in his charge. The Articles of Charges framed on 15.12.1998 against the petitioner read as under:

(2.) The petitioner questioned the order dated 17.05.2004, in writ petition, which was registered as SWP No. 1549/2004, on the ground that the Inquiry Officer did not adhere to and follow the principles of natural justice while dealing with the matter; that the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer suffered from arbitrariness and that copies of documents/files referred to by the Inquiry Officer in his report were not supplied to petitioner so as to enable him to make an effective representation against the inquiry report and the conclusions drawn. The Disciplinary Authority, it was pleaded, also failed to provide copy of the inquiry report and copies of the documents referred to in the report and failed to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner requiring him to show cause against the proposed penalties. The inquiry report and the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority, it was contended, were vitiated for non-observance of principles of natural justice and rules governing the field. The penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the petitioner, was disproportionate and unreasonable and therefore, liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner while arguing the matter confined challenge to the order impugned in the petition to the extent of penalties imposed on petitioner. In other words, challenge to inquiry report and order of the Disciplinary Authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and the prescribed procedure was not pressed by learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel instead placed exclusive focus on extent of the penalty imposed. It was contended that the penalty imposed was excessive, exorbitant and not commensurate with the misconduct alleged against petitioner.