SHARAD CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for petitioner submits that he raised legal question before the Tribunal regarding maintainability of the charges levelled against the petitioner and also the fact that the disciplinary inquiry could not have been initiated on the recommendations of CBI and further submits that from the perusal of the allegations levelled, no case of misconduct is made out and that being so, the disciplinary authority could not be said to be justified in initiating departmental enquiry and holding him guilty and inflicting penalty on the delinquent-petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL submits that submissions were made regarding the allegation levelled as alleged in the charge-sheet and so also in regard to order of punishment inflicted upon him, before the Tribunal and that was specifically alleged in the Ordinal Application as well. However para-5 of the order impugned itself indicates regarding the submissions advanced but what was those submissions in particular has not been mentioned in the order and under these facts and circumstances apart from the order of the Tribunal the very charge-sheet served upon the petitioner and penalty inflicted upon him deserves to be quashed.

(3.) HOWEVER , before parting with the order, we would like to observe that in the order impugned the learned Tribunal has modified the order of penalty from two stages in the time scale of pay to one stage in time scale of pay for a period of one year but there appears no cogent reasons for altering the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner by the punishing authority and we would like to observe that while examining the doctrine of proportionality of punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority it is not to be ordinarily altered unless exceptional reasons are forthcoming and such of the cogent reasons must be reflected from the order itself while interfering in the quantum of punishment and that has to be sparingly exercised in exceptional cases.