IMPORTANT POINT
Punishment inflicted by appointing authority can be appealed before higher authorities.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, who was working as a Junior Clerk in the Subordinate Court at Yanam (Pondicherry), was dismissed from the service on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings by the Chief Judge, Pondicherry (for short "Chief Judge") vide order dated November 8, 2000. The appellant challenged that order before the High Court of judicature at Madras by filing a Writ Petition. His Writ Petition came to be dismissed on June 11, 2007. It is from this order that the present appeal, by special leave, arises.

3. On April 28, 1999, the appellant was issued a Charge Memo setting out therein that he was liable to be proceeded with the disciplinary action under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short "CCS Rules"). Along with the Charge-Memo, Article of Charges was sent to the appellant. The Article of Charges contained ten articles. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and inquiry proceeded against the appellant. The appellant filed his response by way of defence to the Charge Memo and Article of Charges and denied the allegations levelled against him. The appellant, after some time, did not participate in the departmental inquiry. As a result of which, the departmental inquiry continued ex-parte. Subsequently, on his objection that he had not been provided adequate opportunity, ex-parte departmental inquiry was re-called and the inquiry started de novo. After full participation by the appellant thereafter in the departmental inquiry, some of the charges were found fully proved while some were held partially proved by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority (Chief Judge), on consideration of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, agreed with the findings recorded in the inquiry report and awarded to the appellant penalty of dismissal from the service.

4. The dismissal order dated November 8, 2000, as noted above, was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Madras by way of filing a Writ Petition but without any success.

5. Mr. V. Kanagaraj, learned senior counsel for the appellant raised two-fold contention before us. Firstly, he contended that the Chief Judge was an appellate authority and, therefore, he could not have imposed the order of punishment as that has resulted in depriving the appellant of his valuable right of departmental appeal against the order of punishment. In support of this contention, Mr. Kangaraj placed reliance on the two decisions of this court; (i) Surjit Ghose vs. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others, (1995)2 SCC 474 and (ii) Electronics Corporation of India vs. G. Muralidhar, (2001) 10 SCC 43.

6. The second contention of Mr. Kangaraj is that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are vitiated inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had taken into consideration the evidence that was recorded in the ex-parte proceedings.

7. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, it may be stated immediately that the said contention is misplaced. The Inquiry Officer has not based his findings on the evidence that was recorded ex-parte but has referred to that only for the purposes of appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the department in de novo inquiry wherein the appellant fully participated. The findings are based on the evidence that was recorded subsequently in the presence of the appellant. It is true that the witnesses PW2 to PW11 examined by the department did not support the department fully but besides the evidence of PW2 to PW11, there is a evidence of PW1. The Inquiry Officer considered his evidence and relied upon the same.

8. In our considered view, the consideration of the evidence recorded in the course of the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the appellant and the findings recorded by him do not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying any interference by us.

9. Coming to the first contention raised by Mr. Kanagaraj, suffice it to say that ordinarily