ORDER
Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. A minor penalty of censure issued in pursuance of a show cause notice dated 10.11.2004 passed by the respondents on 21.12.2004 has been assailed. Also assailed an order passed in appeal on 20.5.2005 whereby a minor penalty of censure upon the Head Constable (Ministerial) has been affirmed.
3. Learned Counsel for applicant states that by mathematical calculation the concerned authority to whom the bills were presented would have signed 360 times but the same has been exaggerated in the show cause notice. It is also contended that the defence plea taken by the applicant in his appeal having not been taken into consideration, which, inter alia, included the very important aspect of the matter, i.e., as per the orders of DCP (Security) bills were not to be processed further till receipt of the budget from the PHQ and on being received the necessary payments could be made, which would have resulted in alleged delay in presenting the bills.
4. It is also stated by the applicant that there are no instructions issued by the ACP to present the bills in short number. This, according to the applicant, is non-application of mind, which has deprived him of a reasonable opportunity.
5. On the other hand, respondents’ learned Counsel vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that applicant having failed to take a plea by way of his reply to the show cause notice, which he has not filed in his volition, no prejudice has been caused to him and he has been suitably punished with a minor penalty on establishment of charge against him.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
7. Even in case of a minor penalty, opportunity of hearing with a reasonable opportunity is a mandate as held by the Apex Court in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 SCC (L & S) 188.
8. We find from the appellate order that the contentions raised by the applicant as regards the fact that no misconduct attributed to the applicant having not been considered as well as other contentions, the order in appeal lacks application of mind and this has gravely prejudiced the applicant.
9. In the result, OA is partly allowed. Impugned appellate order is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to be considered in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.