B B GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question that arises for consideration in this petition is: Whether the Disciplinary Authority is required to record reasons and grant opportunity of being heard to the delinquent employee where such Authority differs from the findings of the enquiry officer in a departmental enquiry and proceeds to award punishment on the basis of its own counter findings? The fate of the petition will ultimately turn on the answer to this question and the ancillary issues raised by the parties would resultantly pale into insignificance.

(2.) PETITIONER is an Executive Engineer in the Central Public Works Department and is due for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. He was first issued a memo on 11.11.1983 charging him of certain lapses in the execution of some work in the Community Centre at Pachkuian Road, New Delhi. He replied to the memo and denied the allegations made therein. After a year or so; a second memo dated 31,1.1985 was served on him. This was accompanied by a charge sheet containing 7 Articles of charges and he was asked to submit his statement of defence within ten days. He again denied the charges leading to the appointing of Shri S. Lahri and Enquiry Officer who submitted his report on 9.5.1989.

(3.) THE Enquiry Officer found Articles I to V "as factually proved". Article VI as not established and Article VII "as proved". Petitioner represented against the report and on consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and on the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) the Disciplinary Authority held Articles II and IV to VII as proved and passed order dated 20.7.1993 withholding the increments of pay of the petitioner for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Petitioner is aggrieved of this order and seeks its quashment besides other ancillary reliefs like quashing of the charge sheet and the findings of the Enquiry Officer.