M P POTDAR Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY NCERT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is serving as a Lecturer in Physics in the Regional College of Education, Ajmer, has filed the present writ petition in this Court contending inter alia that the respondent college is run and administered by the National Council of Education Research and Training, New Delhi (in short 'NCERT). This Council is a part and parcel of Education Department of the Ministry of Education, (now Ministry of human Resources and Development) Government of India, and hence, it is under the ultimate control of the Government of India.

(3.) IN the meanwhile the Council had issued a memorandum dated September 26/30, 1983, proposing an inquiry against the petitioner Under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule of 1965). The petitioner submitted his reply dated November 21, 1983, to the memorandum from Nigeria. Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the directions from the Director of the Council vide order dated February 24/27, 1984. The petitioner made his detailed submissions before the inquiry officer on October 19, 1985 and December 4, 1985. The Enquiry officer submitted his report to the effect that charges were not established against the petitioner. In appeal, however, the disciplinary authority recorded dis -agreement with the conclusions drawn by the inquiring authority and imposed a penalty of stoppage of four annual grade Increments with cumulative effect and further directed that the period between December 2, 1980 to December 9, 1984 be treated as dies non. Against the order of disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated September 28, 1987 to the appellate authority, i.e., the Minister in the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India. The said appeal of the petitioner was finally heard and decided by the appellate authority vide order dated December, 16/22, 1988 whereby the appeal was dismissed. It has further been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority had decided the appeal without offering any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the impugned order is based on conjuctures and surmises and is not a reasoned order.