ORDER
Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J)
1. Validity of departmental proceedings initiated vide memorandum dated 09th April, 2003 issued by The Director, Song & Drama Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi (Respondent No. 2) under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) which culminated into imposition of compulsory retirement inflicted vide order dated 13.7.2004, as up held by dismissal of applicant’s petition vide order dated 29.08.2005, is challenged in present OA. Applicant seeks reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including back wages, interest on arrears, exemplary costs, etc. A direction is also sought to Respondent No. 1 to investigate the conduct of Respondents 3 & 4 and to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against them for their alleged act and commissions.
2. The facts as stated are that applicant initially joined Respondents’ service as Copyist (Staff Artist) on contract basis in the year 1976. His contract was extended from time to time and later, in terms of policy decision taken by the Government treating Staff Artists as deemed regular Government servants w.e.f. 06.03.1982, order dated 14.06.1993 was issued and he had been treated as a Government servant. Vide order dated 16.10.1995, on creation of 648 temporary civil posts in the said Song & Drama Division, applicant was declared as Government servant w.e.f. 06.03.1982. Vide Memorandum dated 7.2.2003 issued under Rule 14 of the Rules, departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant as well as Shri Inayat Malik, Instrumentalist, alleging certain misconduct. Vide another order of same date, Respondent No. 2 directed that disciplinary action against the 2 officials (including applicant herein) shall be taken in a common proceeding under Rule 18 (2) of the said Rules. Vide yet another order of said date, applicant was placed under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceeding is ‘contemplated’ against him. Inquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 17.03.2003. Proceeding was also held by said inquiry officer on 28.03.2003. Prior to it, he submitted representation dated 25.3.2003 and requested to withdraw the said charge memorandum. Respondents without deciding aforesaid objection, issued another Memorandum dated 09.04.2003 under Rule 14 of the said Rules where under vide para 7, earlier Memorandum dated 07.02.2003 was superseded and it was stated that: ‘the inquiry proceedings already undergone in respect of both the afore referred Memoranda will not have any bearing on this Memorandum and the proceedings will be taken afresh’.
3. The gravaman of the charge levelled there under was to the effect that applicant:
took personal loans of Rs. 94,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Bhawan, New Delhi in October, 2001, Rs. 1.00 lakh from Syndicate Bank, Transport Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi in January, 2002 and Rs. 50,000/- from Bank of India, Ashok Vihar, Delhi in June, 2002. The total loan amount taken by him from the three Nationalized Banks is thus Rs. 2.44 lakhs. For securing these loans he submitted three fabricated salary slips for the months of August, October, 2001 and May, 2002 to the Banks. He prepared a fabricated salary slip for the month of August, 2001, got it attested by an officer of Song & Drama Division who did so in good faith under the impression that the salary slip brought before him was genuine. He submitted this fabricated salary slip to Punjab National Bank. He submitted a fabricated salary slip for the month of October, 2001 to Syndicate Bank. Shri Nagar prepared another fabricated salary slip for the month of May, 2002 and submitted it to Bank of India, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He also used a rubber stamp in this salary slip prepared in the name of ‘B.N. Upadhyay, Manager, S&DD, Min. of I&B, New Delhi’ and put a forged signature over it. He also prepared a irrevocable letter of undertaking addressed to DDO, S&DD, New Delhi. Instead of submitting this letter to S&DD office, he submitted it to Syndicate Bank directly after putting a fictitious bilingual rubber stamp (English & Hindi) prepared in the name of ‘Assistant Director, Song & Drama Division, Ministry of I&B’, and writing over it ‘Recd for compliance’ and putting a factitious/forged signature over it with a view to give an impression to the Bank that S&DD office had received it. Shri Nagar prepared a similar letter of undertaking for Shri Inayat Malik, Instrumentalist, Song & Drama Division and helped him in submitting the false document to Syndicate Bank for securing the personal loan.
Shri Rakesh Nagar obtained loans from the Banks on the strength of the fabricated, fictitious and forged documents. He obtained loans for marriage of his sister but did not use the loan amount for the purpose mentioned in his loan applications. He cheated the Banks by submitting to them the false documents and by giving false information about the purpose of loan. He also did not intimate the Government about the loans taken from the Banks within one month of the transactions as required under the CCS (Conduct) Rules. He took personal loans beyond his repaying capacity. He failed to pay the installments due to the Banks.
4. On the very next day, Respondent No. 2 passed order dated 10.04.2003 to the following effect:
Order of even No. dated 07.02.2003 through which common disciplinary proceedings against Shri Inayat Malik, Instrumentalists & Shri Rakesh Nagar, Copyist, Song & Drama Division, New Delhi were instituted is hereby cancelled.
Applicant denied the charges levelled against him vide representation dated 21.04.2003 (A/10) and requested to drop the proceedings and also requested that he may be given a personal hearing. Vide office order dated 21.05.2003, Respondents accepted request of Smt. Neera Tiwari, Actress and Shri Inayat Mallik, Instrumentalist to proceed on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 21.05.2003. Vide order of same date, applicant was transferred from Hdqrs to Song and Drama Division, Regional Centre at Dehradun. Vide representation dated 06.11.2003, he objected against the appointment of Shri V.V. Krishna Sarma as Presenting Officer. Vide communication dated 18.11.2003, Respondent No. 2 informed the Inquiring authority that the applicant cannot legitimately raise any objection against appointment of Shri Sarma as Presenting Officer and accordingly required him to dispose of applicant’s representation appropriately. The inquiring authority was also requested to submit the enquiry report at the earliest. Vide representation dated 02.12.2003, applicant requested to supply additional documents/witnesses in support of his defence. Continuation of Shri V.V. Krishna Sarma as Presenting Officer was also objected to vide representation dated 23.12.2003. Vide communication dated 01.01.2004, applicant renewed his request for dropping the charges and requested for sympathetic consideration, stating the following:
that I was placed under suspension w.e.f. February, 2003 by Song and Drama Division. Due to suspension and subsequent charge-sheet and meager subsistence allowance paid to me to maintain my family have shattered my life. I am not able to face my colleagues (sic), friends and relatives & to carry with the social stigma of suspension and proceedings.
that I have a daughter for which I am worried about(sic) her marriage very soon & I apprehend pendency of the case may adversely effect the chances of the marriage in time.
that I have rendered more than 27 years of unblemished service without any complaint to my superiors.
2. Sir, due to poor knowledge about the rules and poor financial problem at a particular time in the family, I have unintentionally committed the mistakes mentioned in the charge-sheet which I deeply regret and request your good-self kindly not to punish me further. Sir, I have already cleared the Bank loans raised by me.
3. It is most humbly & graciously with folded hands prayed to your good-self that in view of my admission of my charges to kindly stop the proceedings and save me from acute mental pressure and uncertainty about my future. I assure you sir, I will not repeat such mistake in future and give no room for any complaint. For this act of kindness, I and my family members would retain grateful to you.
5. On 12.01.2004, applicant appeared before the inquiring authority and made a written request to the following effect:
Sub : Prayer for dropping of disciplinary proceedings pending against me
Respected Sir,
I accept the article of charge leveled against me under Memo No. C-14013/8/03-Vig. Dated 9.4.2003. I, therefore, request that the departmental inquiry may please be dropped.
In this connection, I would like to submit the following facts for your kind and sympathetic consideration:
– that I was placed under suspension w.e.f. February, 2003 by Song and Drama Division. Due to suspension and subsequent charge-sheet and meager subsistence allowance paid to me to maintain my family have shattered my life. I am not able to face my colleagues (sic) , friends and relatives & to carry with the social stigma of suspension and proceedings.
– that I have a daughter for which I am worried bout her marriage very soon & I apprehend pendency of the case may adversely effect the chances of the marriage in time.
– that I have rendered more than 27 years of unblemished service without any complaint to my superiors.
3. It is most humbly & graciously with folded hands prayed to your good-self that in view of my admission of my charges to kindly stop the proceedings and save me from acute mental pressure and uncertainty about my future. I assure you sir, I will not repeat such mistake in future and give no room for any complaint. For this act of kindness, I and my family members would retain grateful to you. I have paid back the loan taken from Punjab National Bank along with interest in full. An amount of Rs. 1760/- only is outstanding against the loan taken from Bank of India (copies enclosed)
In the above backdrop, the enquiry report dated 21.01.2004 was submitted, holding that charge framed against applicant ‘stands fully established as admitted by him’. Copy of said report was supplied to him vide Memorandum dated 28.01.2004 and it was desired that he may make any representation or submission, if any, within the time limit prescribed therein. On the same day, with reference to the aforesaid Memorandum, applicant stated the following:
Please refer to your Memorandum No. C-14013/8/03-Vig. Dated 28th January, 2004 on the subject mentioned above. I have seen the report and nothing further to say.
I reiterate my submission made in my letter dated 12th Janurary, 2004 wherein I pleaded for mercy particularly the fact that I have a daughter at the right age for marriage.
I hope your kindself will look into my appeal and pass orders accordingly.
6. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Director, Song & Drama Division vide order dated 13.07.2004, after noticing the findings of inquiry officer as well as taking into consideration applicant’s representation though held that he deliberately and willfully indulged in forgery, fabrication and cheating to secure personal loans from three nationalized banks to the tune of Rs. 2.44 lakhs for himself and also helped others to indulge in such illegal practices. He committed acts highly unbecoming of a Govt. servant which deserve severest penalty. But taking into consideration the mercy petition submitted by applicant while accepting the charges, a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed. A detailed appeal was preferred before the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, which was described to be a petition under Rule 24 (1) (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The said petition had been rejected vide order dated 29th August, 2005.
7. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for applicant strongly raised following contentions:
i) The charge memorandum dated 09.04.2003 was issued without noticing that earlier memorandum dated 07.02.2003 contained identical allegations. In terms of Director General, All India Radio communication dated 5.6.1976, which circulated Ministry of I & B letter dated 24.04.1976 along with the schedule to CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, ‘for all posts’ under Song & Drama Division, ‘Deputy Director (Admn)’ was described the appointing authority, while Director, Song & Drama Division is the appellate authority. The impugned charge memorandum having been issued by the Director, i.e. appellate authority, initiation of such proceedings and action taken thereon is, therefore, non-est, arbitrary and illegal. He has been deprived of an opportunity to prefer an appeal provided under the statutory rules, which act suffers from an inherent defect. Reliance was placed on Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. to contend that where an appeal is provided to the higher authority against the order of the disciplinary authority or of a lower authority and the higher authority passes an order of punishment, the employee concerned is deprived of the remedy of appeal, which is a substantive right given to him by the rules/regulations. An employee cannot be deprived of his substantive right. What is further, when there is a provision of appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority and when the appellate or higher authority against whose order there is no appeal, exercises the power of disciplinary authority in a given case, it results indiscrimination against the employee concerned. In such cases, the right of the employee depends upon the choice of the higher/appellate authority, which patently results in discrimination between an employee and an employer. Surely such a situation cannot savour of illegality.
A common charge sheet had been issued on 7th February, 2003. Since proceedings had been carried by the inquiry officer on the allegations contained vide aforesaid Memorandum, there was no justification to issue a subsequent Memorandum dated 7th April, 2003 particularly based on same & similar allegations. There is no change in the Recruitment Rules. The Director, Song & Drama Division described himself as disciplinary authority, which is untenable in law. The first charge Memorandum was cancelled on 10.04.2003 immediately after issuing the second charge Memorandum on 09.04.2003. It was contended that such an action was impermissible in law. Reliance was placed on K.R. Deb v. Collector, Central Excise, Shillong 1980 (2) SLR 488 Shri Prabhu Dayal and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. 1993 (II) LLJ 380 (Delhi H.C) Chander Singh v. Delhi Devt. Authority and Anr. 1996 (II)/LLJ 713 (SC) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Ajay Kumar Gulati and Order/Judgment dated 20.10.2000 of CAT (Mumbai Bench) reported in Swamys News, June 2001 at P-65 to contend that there exists no provision in rules for completely setting aside the previous enquiry and does not empower the disciplinary authority to order a fresh and denovo enquiry on the same charge. The rules contemplate only one enquiry and no second enquiry on same charge can be ordered by the disciplinary authority by abrogating the main enquiry all-together and the impugned order, which is consequential and based on second enquiry on the same charge, therefore, is entirely without jurisdiction and has to be set aside.
Discrimination was committed by Respondents. Common enquiry dated 7.2.2003 was initiated against Shri Inayat Malik and applicant. Shri Malik was allowed to proceed on voluntary retirement, while applicant had been subjected to harsher penalty of compulsory retirement.
Specific allegations made against Respondents 3 to 5 vide paras 4 (ix) to (xx) of OA remained uncontroverted, inasmuch as Respondents 3 to 5 neither made their appearance nor filed any reply despite notice. In the circumstances, allegations made against said officials, in specific, are deemed admitted. Respondent No. 3 had called applicant in his room on 24.04.2003 and persuaded him to apply for voluntary retirement and admit the charge on the analogy of two other persons, viz. Shri Inayat Malik and Ms. Neera Tiwari. He had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000/-. Shri Inayat Malik also confirmed payment of gratification to the same tune to Respondent No. 3. Reliance was placed on 2001 (4) SLR 637 (SC) State of UP and Ors. v. Raj Pal Singh 2001 (1) LLJ 595 Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd v. Jitendra Prasad Singh and Anr. and Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers’ Union Ltd v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah.
Since penalty was imposed by the Director, acting as disciplinary authority, though in fact he had been the appellate authority, applicant submitted his petition to Respondent No. 1 raising various contentions including the aforesaid grounds in specific. Besides this, it was also pointed out that Deputy Director, in league with Director, blackmailed him. Moreover, statement dated 01.01.2004 cannot be treated as an admission of charge simplicitor. Rather said statement was not an admission of guilt. It must be seen in the context in which statement was made, viz. for dropping of charges. In the aforesaid petition under Rule 24, under para (G), it was also pointed out that when he requisitioned Director, Song & Drama Division as Defence Witness, he through Deputy Director persuaded and terrorized him to withdraw the request and accept the charge. The Deputy Director demanded heavy amount of gratification for bestowing favour solicited. Said specific contentions raised besides other aspect have not been dealt with vide order dated 29.8.2005 & were ignored with impunity. Learned Counsel further laid stress that rejection of his petition vide aforesaid order amounts to non-application of mind by passing a bald and unreasoned order. Reliance was placed on Messrs Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. and 2006 (3) SLR 93 Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. and Ors.
Learned Counsel further contented that very fact that Respondent No. 4 is now facing departmental enquiry on the allegations of administrative and financial irregularities, appointing officials in derogation of rules and was placed under suspension, itself indicates that his actions were not justified. He unsuccessfully challenged his suspension vide OA No. 1677/2006.
8. In the backdrop of above, learned Counsel prayed that impugned orders be quashed and set aside. In case this Tribunal concludes that matter be remanded for further enquiry, it can be done by remitting it to competent authority.
9. Respondents strongly contested the claim laid stating that applicant indulged in fraud and forgery. Earlier charge memorandum dated 07.02.2003 stood superseded in specific vide para 7 of subsequent charge memorandum dated 09.04.2003. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Director, Song & Drama Division, who had been his appointing authority. Moreover, no prejudice was caused by initiating such proceedings against him. In any case he had exhausted his right to appeal to the next higher authority as indeed he submitted such a petition before the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, which in turn had been considered objectively and fairly and was rejected vide order dated 29.08.2005. Applicant in unequivocal terms admitted his guilt vide statement dated 01.01.2004, as reiterated on 12.01.2004. The allegations now made are baseless & after-thought. The appellate authority noticed that he raised a number of issues not at all relevant to the case. Allegations of procedural infirmities had no substance as the applicant, during the course of enquiry, admitted charges unconditionally and therefore, the charges against him stood proved as per his own admission. He did not raise these points during the course of enquiry. Even after the enquiry report was forwarded to him, he did not raise said issues. Applicant’s contention that proceedings were initiated by Director, who in fact had been the appellate authority, was dealt with in specific by Respondent No. 1 stating that said contention was not valid as he was initially appointed by Director S&DD and the disciplinary authority cannot be subordinate to the appointing authority in terms of Rule 12 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Director S&DD had accordingly rightly acted as disciplinary authority in the case.
10. Respondents also pointed out that there was no necessity to any of Respondents 2 to 5 to put pressure upon him to accept the charge in the midst of enquiry. Applicant cannot compare himself with Shri Inayat Malik and Ms. Neera Tiwari. There was no infraction of principle of natural justice and departmental proceedings were conducted in terms of provisions of rules in vogue. The law is well settled that in the event of delinquent officials accepting the charges before the enquiring authority, there is no requirement of conducting full-fledged enquiry. In the present case, the very fact that he did not raise any objection against the findings of enquiry officer, as evident from his representation dated 28.1.2004, as extracted hereinabove. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are reasoned, detailed and analytical in nature. The judgments on which reliance was placed are inapplicable in the peculiar facts of present case particularly when applicant himself admitted the guilt in no uncertain term as evident from the statement noticed hereinabove, contended Shri B.K. Berera, learned Counsel. Reliance was placed on 2006 (3) ATJ 492 A. Subhakar v. Post Master General, Hyderabad and Ors. Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Narender Singh and Channabasappa v. State of Mysore.
11. We heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the pleadings carefully besides original records produced before us.
12. The first and foremost issue, which basically needs determination in the present case is whether the findings of the enquiry officer were based upon applicant’s own admission or not? The second issue which needs consideration is whether applicant was deprived of his vested right of making an appeal in the given circumstances?
13. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to all aspects of case and the rival contentions raised by parties.
14. As far as the first issue, as noticed hereinabove, is concerned, we may note once again at the cost of repetition that applicant vide communication dated 1.1.2004 addressed to Director, Song & Drama Division, deeply regretted about his act and stated in clear terms that he ‘unintentionally committed the mistakes’. Vide para 3, he also stated that: ‘in view of my admission of my charges to kindly stop the proceedings and save me from acute mental pressure and uncertainty about my future.’ He has also assured that such acts will not be repeated in future. Thereafter applicant made another statement before the inquiry officer on 12.01.2004, which we have already extracted hereinabove. A perusal of said statement, in our considered view, leads to irresistible conclusion that applicant’s ‘admission of guilt’ is neither conditional nor vague, but it is unambiguous and clear on all aspects. He admitted all relevant facts on which the decision could be given against him. Moreover, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narender Singh (supra), since the embargo placed on admissibility of confession made before Police by Section 25 of Evidence Act is not applicable to departmental proceedings, statement made even made before the Police Officer can be used against him in the departmental enquiry particularly when the standard of proof in departmental enquiry is preponderance of probability and not prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt. What has to be established in the present case is that applicant took personal loans by submitting fabricated salary slips, which statement of fact is not disputed. Applicant’s contention that statement dated 01.01.2004 did not amount to accepting the charge in specific, but it amounts to only conditional acceptance of charge is misconceived, baseless and an after-thought statement, which cannot be accepted.
15. As far as applicant’s contention that earlier proceedings dated 7.2.2003 had not been dropped, & no liberty was reserved to initiate fresh proceedings, and which action violates the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, we may note that in second charge Memorandum dated 9.4.2003 vide para-7 it in uncertain terms stated that:
This Memorandum of charge supersedes the common Memorandum of charge issued in the name of Shri Inayat Malik, Instrumentalist and Shri Rakesh Nagar, Copyist vide Memorandum No. C-13013/1/2002-vig. dated 07.02.2003 and combined modified Memorandum of charge issued to both the above said officials vide Memorandum No. C-13013102002-Vig. dated 26.02.2003. The inquiry proceedings already undergone in respect of both the afore referred Memoranda will not have any bearing on this Memorandum and the proceedings will be taken afresh.
Moreover, on the very next day another order was passed which we have already extracted hereinabove, vide which the order of even No. dated 07.02.2003 initiating common disciplinary proceedings was cancelled. We may note the fact that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. R.K. Shewasramani has held that charge sheet need not incidate that previous pending proceedings had been dropped. The relevant extract of said judgment reads as under:
10. There is no requirement in law that for continuing with fresh proceedings the charge sheet issued must indicate that the previous proceedings pending have been given a go by. The employer is free to proceed in as many as departmental proceedings as it considers desirable. Even in a hypothetical case in two of the departmental proceedings the finding is in favour of the delinquent employee, yet in another departmental proceeding finding adverse to the delinquent officer can be recorded. Merely because the two proceedings were pending, that did not in any way stand on the way of the employer to initiate another departmental proceeding and that too on the basis of an amended provision which came into effect after initiation of the previous departmental proceeding.
Moreover, it was not his plea that either any penalty was imposed with reference to Memo dated 7.02.2003. Similarly, neither it was established that any prejudice was caused to him based on subsequent Memo dated 09.04.2003.
16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we find no substance and justification in the first issue and accordingly we hold that enquiry officer’s findings were based on applicant’s own candid admission of fact.
17. As far as second issue, as noticed hereinabove, is concerned, it is not in dispute that applicant was appointed by Director, Song & Drama Division though under rules and schedule appended to CCS (CCA) Rules, Deputy Director (Administration) was the appointing authority. In the circumstances, we find justification in the Respondents’ contention that a Director becomes his appointing authority as well as disciplinary authority. Once such is the fact and further that when it is not in dispute that he indeed made a petition, though termed it under Rule 24 of CCS (CCA) Rules, before the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, the fact remains that he had exercised his vested right of appeal to a higher authority and there is no denial of such a remedy available under the rules and regulations. Strong reliance placed on Surjit Ghosh (supra), in our considered view, is misplaced and ratio of said judgment is inapplicable. In Surjit Ghosh impugned action was taken against him by the Deputy General Manager although the Divisional Manager and AGM (Personnel) were available for taking the action. Under the regulations in force, the admitted facts were that disciplinary authority for officers in grades E, D, C & B (excepting Divisional Manager in Grade B) was the Divisional Manager/AGM (Personnel) and the appeal against their order lay to the Deputy General Manager or any other officer of the same rank. Appellant therein was an officer in Grade ‘D’. Since the action against him was taken by the Deputy General Manager, although the Divisional Manager and AGM (Personnel) were available for taking the action, it was held that appellant was denied right of appeal and also the right of review which lay only against an appellate order. The Bank had pleaded that when order of punishment was passed by higher authority, no appeal is available under the regulations. Such are not the facts in the case at hand. As we have already noticed, applicant was appointed by the Director and the action under Article 311 of the Constitution of India could not have been taken by an authority i.e. lower in rank than the authority who appointed him. Moreover, applicant had indeed exercised his vested right to appeal to the higher authority, which had been the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting in the facts and circumstances of present case. In the circumstances, we hold that judgment of Surjit Gosh is quite distinguishable and inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. We may also note the fact that applicant raised the plea that discrimination was committed by the authorities in allowing Shri Inayat Malik to proceed on voluntary retirement though in his case a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed. We find no substance & justification in the same as both are not comparable.
18. Having bestowed our careful consideration to the entire aspect of the case, we are of the view that whether a person proceeds on voluntary retirement or suffers a penalty of compulsory retirement makes no difference as long as one is concerned with entitlement of pension and pensionary benefits. The only distinction remains with regard to stigma, if any. When applicant himself admitted his guilt in taking loans by producing false and forged salary slips, we see no reason why the punishment imposed upon him may be treated as discriminatory action. What penalty should be imposed in given circumstances is not an issue raised in present OA. The competence and jurisdiction to take such a decision is clearly vested with appropriate authority. The enquiry report, its acceptance by the disciplinary authority as well as orders passed by the appellate authority, in our considered view, are reasoned and speaking orders and suffer from no illegality.
19. Taking a cumulative view of the matter & in view of discussion made hereinabove, we find no justification and reasons in applicant’s contentions, and judgments on which reliance was placed are held to be inapplicable. Finding no merits in the claim laid, OA is dismissed. No costs.