ORDER
G. Shanthappa, Member (J)
1. The above application is filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1987 seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS leading to the issuance of (1) Charge Sheet No. F3/7/93-94 dated 21-4-1995 at ANNEXURE-A4, (2) Inquiry Report dated 15-2-2003 at ANNEXURE-A25, (3) Penalty orders of Disciplinary Authority No. SK/STA/10-1/1/CM dated 8-5-2003 at ANNEXURE-A6, (4) Order of the Appellate Authority No. SK/STA/9-3/1/03/III dated 19-5-2004 at ANNEXURE-A8, and (5) order of the Revisionary Authority No. STA/9-5/1/05 dated 28-2-2005 at ANNEXURE-A10, passed by respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and on scrutiny (a) SET ASIDE all of them as illegal and arbitrary, (b)DIRECT the respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes;
(ii) AWARD promotion from the date on which he was eligible after the completion of the residuary period as HSG-II and award all the consequential benefits thereof and to award exemplary cost of this application on account of the multiplicity of need for filing the application before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
2. We heard learned Counsel Shri Arul Anandu for the applicant and Shri K.N. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are the applicant while working as SPM at Mysore, was served with the memorandum of charges dated 16-3-1994 (Annexure A2). Subsequently the said charges were withdrawn vide letter dated 20-7-1994. Earlier to the said charges, the applicant was suspended vide order dated 15-9-1993 w.e.f. 31-5-1993. Subsequent to the earlier charges another memorandum of charges was issued dated 21-4-1995 as per Annexure A4. The charges levelled against the applicant are as follows:
ARTICLE – I
That the said Sri Chikkamaraiah while functioning as Sub Postmaster, Jalapuri SO for the period from 20.6.1991 to 31.5.1993 kept the office cash and stamp balance short by Rs. 1406.05 (Rupees One thousand four hundred six & paise 05) on 29.5.1993 at the time of verification of cash and stamp balances of Jalapuri SO by ASP i/c Mysore West Sub Division in violation of Rule 103 of P & T Financial Hand Book Volume I read with Rule 84 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part III and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in contravention of Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) respectively of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE – II
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sri Chikkamaraiah failed to account for a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) accepted on 16.2.1993 from Sri Rajendra Peter, holder of Postal Life Insurance Policies number ZZCE/303012 and KTCE/004034-7 in violation of Rules 547(a) of P & T Financial Hand Book Volume I read with Rules 4, 8 and 103 ibid and also Rules 84, 85 and 99 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part III (6th edition) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in contravention of Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) respectively of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE – III
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Chikkamaraiah borrowed moneys from the following persons at interest executing demand pronotes in violation of Rules 16 and 17 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of Rule 3(1(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Name and address of the Amount Date of execution person
Borrowed of demand pronote from whom
borrowed
Sri N.S. Swamy Rs. 8000 29.8.1992
Proprietor
Mahatma Tailoring Hall
388, B.N. Street,
Mysore.
Sri shivanandappa Rs. 5000 4.11.1991
C/O M.Prakash,
Pharmacist,
Karnataka Police Academy
Hospital, Jalapuri
Mysore.
4. The applicant submitted his representation to the said memorandum of charges in which he denied the charges. The applicant filed OA No. 222/2002 before the Tribunal with a prayer to drop the charges and quash the charge sheet and direct the respondents to promote him if he is found otherwise eligible for promotion. The said OA was dismissed on 29-8-2002 with the following observation:
the respondents will finalise the enquiry and Disciplinary Authority will pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant will cooperate with the respondent-department so that the enquiry is completed within this time limit.
5. Subsequently the enquiry was held, a copy of the enquiry report was served on the applicant on 3-3-2003. In turn, the applicant submitted his representation dated 28-3-2003. It is the contention of the applicant in the present OA that without considering the objections made in his representation and without application of mind the disciplinary authority has passed the order of penalty dated 8-5-2003. The operative portion of the said order is as follows:
the pay of Shri Chikkamaraiah be reduced by 4 stages from Rs. 7250/- to Rs. 6650/- in the timescale of pay of 5000-150-8000 for a period of 1 year with effect from 1.6.03. It is further directed that Shri Chikkamariah will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
6. The main contentions of the applicant in challenging the impugned order of penalty is, (1) the Disciplinary Authority has not considered the objection while passing the impugned order of penalty: (2) the applicant has denied the charges, (3) there was delay in conducting the enquiry, the alleged offence (1991-1993) and the date of charge-sheet had been over three years. There is no satisfactory reason for the delay of more than 13 months from the date of first charge sheet and second charge sheet. The entire proceeding vitiates in view of the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Ramesh Chander v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in 1986 LIC 736 Delhi and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Chaman lal Goyal reported in (1995) SCC (L & S) 541. (4) No proper opportunity was given to the applicant to defend himself in the enquiry. (5)The applicant’s request for postponement of enquiry proceedings on 16-10-2002, 17-10-2002 & 18-10-2002 on the ground of Cauveri agitation when the public transport facility had been suspended, was rejected. (6) Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rule is violated. The applicant submitted the list of documents on 21-5-2002 (Annexure A27). Out of 23 documents sought for by the applicant, 14 documents were indicated “not available”, 2 documents were ‘reserved’ in pursuance to Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, although the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when a certain procedure is required by Constitution, that procedure should strictly be followed. If the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. (7) Disciplinary Authority delayed enquiry since 1992 and the applicant was subjected to mental trauma and torture, Enquiry Authority declared that there were no questions to be asked under Rule 14(18) of the Rules. The approach of the enquiry authority is against the Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of P.A.Rajan and also in violation of directions of this Tribunal in OA No. 222/2002. (8) A reasonable and sufficient, adequate opportunity was not given to the applicant to cross examine the witnesses and filing his written statement. Hence, the applicant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.
7. Per contra the respondents denied the contentions taken by the applicant. The Enquiry Authority conducted the enquiry under Rule 14 stating as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 examined 16 documents and 07 witnesses on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, examined 5 additional documents on behalf of the applicant and permitted the applicant to produce 9 defence witnesses and allowed him to cross examine the witnesses but the applicant was absent and did not cross examine the witnesses. The last sitting for questioning of the applicant was scheduled for 12-11-2002. The applicant did not turn up and the oral inquiry was concluded as exparte on that date. A copy of the PO brief was sent to the applicant on 4-12-2002 by granting 15 days to submit his written brief. The applicant was reminded on 20-12-2002, but he did not submit his written brief. The request of the applicant for additional documents was considered and discussed in Daily Order Sheets on 29-4-1999, 23-6-1999, 27-8-1999 and finally on 27-9-2002. Non-production of documents, which are relevant or not available either for non-maintenance or for weeding out, does not amount to denial of opportunity. The applicant was served with an enquiry report, in turn, he submitted his representation on 28-3-2003. There is no denial of reasonable opportunity. Despite the Tribunal’s direction to the applicant to cooperate in the enquiry, the enquiry was delayed due to non-cooperation of the applicant once again. Based on the order of extension of time, final order in the disciplinary case was passed on 8-5-2003, i.e., well within the extended time frame. The Inquiry Authority submitted his detailed speaking report on 15-2-2003 upholding all the charges as ‘proved’. The applicant submitted his representation to the Inquiry Report. The Disciplinary Authority considered the representation and issued an impugned order of penalty. There is no abnormal delay in the Inquiry Report. The Disciplinary proceedings are considered, on the other hand, there is no denial of any opportunity to the applicant which does not vitiate the proceedings. As per the schedule of disciplinary powers issued by the Department of Posts dated 27-8-1996 (Sl. No. 2) Head of Divisions are competent to impose all the penalties specified under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant could have attended the inquiry alongwith his AGS from 16-10-2002 to 18-10-2002. Instead of waiting and watching, the AGS issued a letter Annexure -A11 on 09-10-2002 itself. The IA received this letter only on 16-10-2002, the day fixed for inquiry. The AGS in 2nd page states that alternatively he has no objection to fix the inquiry in Bangalore. When the witnesses from Mysore could attend Bangalore if inquiry is held at Bangalore, it is not known what prevented the AGS from attending the inquiry held at Nanjanagud. This makes clear the predetermination of the AGS not to attend the inquiry. The applicant was placed ex parte and admitted the ex parte inquiry held on 16-10-2002 to 18-10-2002 cannot be considered as denial of opportunity.
8. The authority competent to initiate disciplinary action for imposition of major penalty against the official in LSG cadre issued memo of charges under Rule 14 against the applicant. In the meanwhile though a major penalty proceeding was pending the department promoted him from LSG to HSG II. The second respondent is competent authority to impose major penalty in case of Government servant in HSG II cadre. The first respondent was competent to impose one of the minor penalties. The contention of the applicant regarding the authority competent for imposing the penalty is not tenabe.
9. While arguing the case the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted, the legal grounds can be urged at any stage. His contention is that one Shri Sampath, ASP, who is witness since he was present at the time of mahazar and he was witness to the alleged incident. Shri M.Sampth has dual role, witness as well as issuing of charge memo. The learned Counsel for the respondents has produced the original file relating to the disciplinary proceedings for our perusal as contended by the applicant. In the reply statement, the respondents have contended that the applicant is estopped from raising the issue of competency of the second respondent and applicant has not raised the question of competency of the second respondent except for de-novo inquiry at the initial stage. The de-novo inquiry ordered has not resulted in denial of any opportunity or caused any prejudice to the applicant. The applicant has not proved, that Shri Sampath was present at the time of mahazar and he was witness to the incident.
10. The learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the violation of Rule-13(2), Rule 14(17) and Rule 14(18) and Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of (a) Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Shri Kunj Behari Misra , (b) Babu Varghese and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors. , (c) Dr. P.A. Rajan v. The Director General of Health Services and Anr. reported in AISLJ (CAT) Bangalore and (d) Dr. Anil Kumar Mukhi v. The Chief Soil Survey Officer and Ors. in OA No. 738/2004 dated 18-11-2005 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. These judgments relates to non application of mind by Disciplinary Authority while imposing penalty and Reviewing Authority while enhancing/modifying the penalty, showing a lenient view.
11. We carefully examined the contention taken by either side, based on the pleadings and original file relating to the Disciplinary proceedings and Departmental Inquiry. We have to decide, (1) competency to issue charge memo and imposing the penalty as relied by the applicant, whether Rules 13(2), 14(17), 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have been followed and (2) whether there is procedural irregularity while conducting the Inquiry proceedings. It is relevant to extract the said provisions:
Rule 13(2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties.
Rule 14(17). The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then be produced. The Government servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority.
Rule 14(18) The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
12. The learned Counsel for the respondents has produced mahazar. We carefully examined the mahazar in which Shri M. Sampath is not a witness to the mahazar. Hence the contention of the applicant that Shri Sampath was a witness to mahazar is considered and rejected. Accordingly he was not examined as one of the witnesses in the enquiry. In the Daily Order Sheet dated 27-9-2002 the inquiry officer has decided based on the request of the applicant. Regarding defence witnesses the SPS has given a list of witness in which Shri M. Sampath is among them. This request has already been considered on 21-6-1999 in which Shri B.L. Narayana, Sr. PM (retire), Mysore HPO, Shri N.S. Subbanna, Dy. PM (retired) Mysore HO are considered. Regarding defence witness Shri Sampath, SPS, has not produced any documentary evidence. Shri Sampath was available at Jalpuri on 29-5-1993 i.e., the date on which the mahazar was drawn and his name is not found, hence request of SPS was not considered. As per rules Shri Sampath, SPO is the competent authority to issue the charge memo. Accordingly, the charge memo issued by Shri Sampath is proper and there is no illegality or incompetency in issuing the charge memo.
13. Regarding procedural irregularity and violation of the principles of natural justice, while conducting the enquiry proceedings the applicant has contended that he was not given proper opportunity to conduct the case before the enquiry officer. His main contention that on 16th, 17th and 18th of October, 2002 there was strike, due to that there was no transportation facilities between Bangalore and Mysore. The applicant himself has produced the paper cuttings as per Annexure A17 which refers that City Mysore train resumes today i.e., on 13-10-2002. The train services between Bangalore and Mysore which had been temporarily suspended following extensive damage to the level crossing gates by agitators protesting against the release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu, will resume tomorrow. According to a Southern Railway press release, normal services will be resumed from tomorrow onwards. Regarding bus services there was no disruption in KSRTC bus services between Bangalore-Mysore. The press release was that there was normal services on the Bangalore-Maddur-Mandya-Mysore. As per Annexure A21 i.e., Daily Order Sheet No. 41 dated 16-10-2002 the enquiry officer has recorded that AGS in his letter dated 9-10-2002 which was received by the IO on today requested for postponement of the sitting on the ground of ongoing Cauvery agitation and non-availability of transportation from Bangalore to Mysore. The reason furnished by the AGS is not valid. Ample buses are plying and trains are running from Bangalore to Mysore now and also the normalcy has already been restored. By giving one or the other reason the SPS is seeking for postponement of the inquiry which leads to delaying tactics adopted by the SPS. Hence the request of the AGS is not considered. All the three witnesses summoned for the day attended the inquiry in time. The SPS and AGS did not turn up for inquiry.
These three defence witnesses will not be recalled again and treated as closed. The inquiry will be continued tomorrow as per the schedule. The case was called on 17-10-2002. On that day proceedings the SPS was not interested in bringing these two defence witnesses for inquiry hence these two defence witnesses will not be recalled again for inquiry.
14. The SPS and AGS did not turn up for inquiry today also and hence this witness will not be recalled against and treated as closed. The inquiry was adjourned to 18-10-2002. On 18-10-2002 the examination of defence witnesses was completed the inquiry was adjourned for questioning by the IO to SPS. Separate notices will be issued in that regard. The inquiry was held on 12-11-2002.
15. We carefully examined the Daily Order Sheet. Ample opportunity was given to the applicant to attend the inquiry and to cross examine the witnesses. As per the documents submitted by the applicant the transportation between Bangalore and Mysore was resumed. The applicant did not attend the inquiry on 16th, 17th and 18th and now he has come with a plea that there was no proper opportunity was given to him.
16. The learned Counsel for the respondents while arguing has submitted that there is an alternative route to reach Mysore, nothing prevented the applicant to approach the Inquiry Authority on the next date of inquiry. The applicant did not approach the Inquiry Authority and now he cannot say no opportunity was given to him in the inquiry. Based on the submission from either side, we are of the view, a reasonable opportunity was given to the applicant by the Enquiry Officer, hence, the principles of natural justice is not violated.
17. The respondents have contended that the first respondent being the authority competent to initiate disciplinary action for imposition of major penalty against the official in LSG cadre, issued memo of charges under Rule 14 against the applicant. The 2nd respondent is the competent authority to impose the major penalty in the case of Government servants in HSG II cadre, though the 1st respondent was competent to impose one of the minor penalties, he decided to remit the case to the 2nd respondent for issue of final orders. It was decided by the SSP to refer the case to DPS for considering a major penalty. Hence there is no factual error in issuing the charge memo. The Disciplinary Authority has properly considered the contentions raised by the applicant and passed a reasoned and considered order. We carefully examined the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has applied his mind and imposed the penalty, of reduction of pay by four stages from Rs. 7250/- to Rs. 6650/- in the time scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 for a period of one year w.e.f. 1-6-2003. It is further directed that the applicant will not earn increments during the pay reduction and on expiry of this period the reduction will not have effect of postponing the future increments of pay. All the contentions taken by the applicant in his representation and in the OA are considered in the impugned order. Since the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer is in accordance with rules, we are of the view there is no illegality, or irregularity or infirmity while imposing the penalty. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on Rule 14(17) and Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules that the said rules are violated by the respondents. As we extracted the provisions in the preceding paras and also applying the orders of the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order that the IA directed the DWs to be present for examination on 16-10-2002 whereas it was next to impossible to reach Nanjandgud both for himself and AGS due to cauvery agitation. Regarding the opportunity as stated by the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority has decided as per the para-12 of impugned order (Annexure A6) that there is no lacunae in inquiry proceedings. We hold that the Disciplinary Authority has properly considered in coming to the finding that the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer is in order.
18. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority challenging the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the appeal memo is produced as Annexure A7. The appeal memo runs into 20 pages. The Appellate Authority vide his order order dated 19-5-2004 (Annexure A8) has considered all the grounds of appeal, considering the fact that the appellant has only few months to retire and purely from the humanitarian view point, the penalty was imposed by:
modifying as reduction of pay by four stages from Rs. 7250/- to Rs. 6650/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 5000-150-8000 for a period of six months with effect from 1-6-2003. The charged official will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period of the reduction it will not have the effect of postponing future increments of pay.
We carefully examined the orders of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has exercised his powers under Rule 27(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The applicant has mainly contended while arguing the case the paras – 5(d), 5(g), 5(i) and 5(n) to the appeal memo (page 89 of the OA). While deciding the appeal the Appellate Authority has considered the grounds of the appeal and assigned the reasons while modifying the penalty. The learned Counsel for the applicant has strongly relied on the statement, there was no application of mind, the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority has to be quashed. After perusal of the order, when the Appellate Authority has exercised his powers vested under 27(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, the fact that the applicant has only few months to retire and purely on the humanitarian view, we consider the Appellate Authority has assigned the reasons on the grounds urged by the applicant and modified the penalty. We are of the view that there is no error or illegality while deciding the appeal by the Appellate Authority. We are of the considered view that the orders of the Appellate Authority is a reasoned and considered order by application of mind.
19. The applicant submitted his representation/petition as per Annexure A9 in which he has challenged the orders of the Appellate Authority. While deciding the representation/petition the Revisional Authority has considered the grounds urged in the representation/petition and assigned the reasons for modifying the penalty. The penalty was modified to that of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs. 7250/- to Rs. 6950/- for a period of six months w.e.f. 1-6-2003 with further directions that the punishment will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay and that the official will not earn increments during the period of reduction. The main contention of the applicant, while modifying the penalty there was no notice to the applicant, hence the impugned orders of the Revisional Authority violates the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Revisional Authority has taken a lenient view instead of imposing the major penalty of dismissal/compulsory retirement from service, the impugned order was modified. To take a lenient view on the applicant, the notice or hearing the applicant does not arise. Hence the impugned order of Revisional Authority is proper.
20. We carefully examined the impugned order of Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority considered the grounds urged in the application and showed a lenient view and imposed the modified penalty. The same is in order and we did not find apny illegality.
21. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was a delay in issuing the charge memo for a period of 9 months. As per Annexure A4 earlier on 16-3-1994 a charge memo was issued that was withdrawn due to clerical error. Subsequently on 21-4-1995 a fresh charge memo was issued. The delay in issuing the second charge memo i.e., the Annexure A4 has not been explained. Subsequent to issuing of charge memo, on 27-1-1997 inquiry authority and the presenting officer had pointed out that there was a delay of two months. All these delays have not been explained by the respondents. We carefully examined the contention taken by the applicant regarding the delay in issuing the charge memo. The applicant had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 222/2002. This Tribunal has observed while disposed of the the OA in para-5 and 6 which are relevant and extracted below:
5. The applicant’s plea for quashing the charges was based on the abnormal and unexplained delay in finalising the enquiry for which he held the respondents squarely responsible. Series of sittings given in the reply statement from 7-7-95 to 12-2-2002 (pages 5 to 9 of the reply statement) shows that many sittings were adjourned either because the applicant sought adjournment or because he did not attend the enquiry. The details of adjournment of the sittings given in the reply statement have not been rebutted by the applicant in the rejoinder filed by him. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that he was not responsible for the inordinate delay in completion of the enquiry is not substantiated by the material on record. The applicant was largely responsible for the inordinate delay in completing the enquiry. Therefore, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the application did not support the applicant’s case for dropping the enquiry as the responsibility for causing delay could be cast on him.
6. In the light of these facts, we see no reason for dropping the enquiry and quashing the charge-sheet. However, the respondents will finalise the enquiry and Disciplinary Authority will pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant will cooperate with the respondent-department so that the enquiry is completed within this time limit. The OA is dismissed with the above observations.
22. We carefully considered the charge memo issued in the year 1995 and subsequently the enquiry authority and presenting officer was appointed in the year 1997. As observed in the orders of this Tribunal, we consider that there is no delay in issuing the charge memo and also concluding the enquiry. We carefully examined the Daily Order Sheet produced by the respondents alongwith the original file. We are of the view that there is no delay in conducting and concluding the inquiry. The contention of the applicant is rejected.
23. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of violation of Rules 14 and 18 in the case of Hon’ble Apex Court as held in the case of Babu Varghese and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors. .
31. It is the basis principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. Kind Emperor who stated as under:
Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.
24. As we observed in the earlier paras that the powers vested with Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have been exercised by the the competent authorities, when we do not find any infirmity or error of law, ratio of the Judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the applicant is not relevant to the present case. Accordingly we reject the contention of the applicant. The applicant has relied on the Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of the P.A. Rajan v. Director General of Services and Anr. reported in 2000(1) AISLJ 362 the applicant relied on para-3, 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the said judgment. We carefully examined the said paras of the Judgment and find the ratio of the said Judgment is not applicable to the present case. Accordingly we reject the contention of the applicant. The applicant has relied on another Judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 738/2004 dated 18-11-2005 Dr. Anil Kumar Mukhi v. The Chief Soil Survey Officer and Ors. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on para-19, 25 and 26. Para-19 relates to the contention of the applicant that the respondents did not supply the documents and also the Fact Finding Committee report. The list of documents are also not supplied as requested in his representation. Para-25 of the said Judgment relates to illegality of the order of Disciplinary Authority in respect of non-application of mind. According to the facts of the case the impugned order is not a speaking order, no reasons are assigned and all the objections of the applicant were not considered. Before passing the order, the advice of the UPSC was not supplied, without hearing the applicant on the advice the impugned order was passed and a copy of the advice of the UPSC was not supplied which is illegal and violates the principles of natural justice. As per para-26 of the judgment, a reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provisions of Article 311(2) was not forwarded. We carefully examined the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant, in the present case the proper procedure has been followed by the inquiry officer. An opportunity to appear before the inquiry officer was given and all the documents were supplied, the Disciplinary Authority has considered the representation of the applicant and passed a considered and reasoned order. The ratio laid down by this Tribunal in OA No. 738/2004 is not applicable to the present OA. Accordingly the contention taken by the applicant is rejected.
25. The counsel for the applicant has relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunj Behari Misra v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. reported in JT 1998 (5) SC 58. The said Judgment is on the contention taken that the opportunity was not given before imposing the penalty. As we observed in the earlier para regarding modification of penalty by the Revisional Authority, the Revisional Authority has shown lenient view instead of imposing further higher penalty and he has modified the penalty. We do not find any illegality or irregularity while modifying the penalty. The learned Counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed that the Judgment referred by the applicant is not applicable to the facts of the present case and he requests for rejection of contention of the applicant.
26. The learned Counsel for the respondents has referred para-5.17 and para-5.19 at pages 173 and 174 of the file i.e., reply statement. The applicant is estopped from raising the issue of competency of the 2nd respondent. the applicant did not raise the competency of 2nd respondent any time before but was only persisting upon de-novo inquiry from the initial stage. The denovo inquiry ordered in the case has not resulted in denial of any opportunity or caused prejudice to the applciant. The learned Counsel for the applicant has strongly argued that the question of law can be raised at any time. We considered the contention made by the respondents that the applicant is estopped from raising the issue of competency of the 2nd respondent. We consider that the question of law can be raised at any time. The applicant has rightly raised the question of law regarding the competency of the 2nd respondent to issue charge memo. We carefully examined Rule 14 of CCA (CCS) rules and also the charge memo issued and this issue has been decided by the appropriate authorities under Government of India decision (16) below Rule 14, the 2nd respondent is competent Reviewing Authority for disposing of the bias petition in the case of the applicant and to pass appropriate orders. There is no factual error or infirmity while deciding the issue regarding the bias petition. The question of law as contended raised by the applicant has already been decided in the earlier paras.
27. Since the applicant has not made out a case for quashing the impugned orders, the charges levelled against the applicant was proved based on the sufficient basis under Rule 14 and following the principles of natural justice. Taking into account the fact that the applicant was due to retire shortly, a lenient view was taken against him by imposing a penalty of reduction of pay. Since the respondents have followed the procedure and all the contentions of the applicant raised in his representation, appeal memo and the Revision Petition, we are of the considered view, the impugned orders are reasoned and considered order and the respondents have followed the procedure under the CCA (CCS) Rules 14 and 27 and powers of revision vested under Rule 29 of CCA (CCS) Rules. At all the stages, the principles of natural justice has been followed. Accordingly, we answer the issues raised in para 11 supra. The applicant has not made out a case for grant of reliefs. We are of the view that the respondents have properly followed the procedure and exercised their powers vested with them under the CCA (CCS) Rules and the stand taken by the respondents is perfect.
Accordingly, we are of the view that OA is liable to be dismissed. OA is dismissed. No costs.