The Disciplinary Authority must provide reasons for disagreeing with an Enquiry Officer's findings and allow the employee to respond before imposing penalties, as per principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Nivedita P. Mehta, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition assailing the order dated 30.4.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 removing the petitioner from the service and the orders dated 2.4.2012, 21.5.2013 and 27.1.2015 passed by the Appellate/Reviewing Authority.

2. Succinctly, the petitioner applied for the post of Hindi Translator based on an advertisement issued by respondent no.1 in the year 1998. After the due selection process was concluded, the petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Translator vide order dated 7.5.1998. The petitioner was also given a training course of three months conducted by the Central Translation Bureau, Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, at Bangalore as the same was made compulsory to get appointment on a regular basis. After completion of the aforesaid translation course, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Hindi Translator on a regular basis with effect from 2.4.1999 and after completion of the probation period the petitioner was confirmed on 8.4.2003. The petitioner at the time of applying for the post of Hindi Translator had submitted his certificates of educational qualification which were duly verified by the respondent No.1.

3. On 29.7.2003, the respondent no. 1 issued a memo asking the petitioner to submit documents of his educational qualification to consider him for the post of Senior Hindi Translator. Accordingly, the petitioner replied to the said memo vide his reply dated 26.8.2003. On 29.9.2003, the respondent no.1 again sought information from the petitioner as regards the University from which the petitioner had completed his graduation and post-graduation from.

4. The respondent no.1 issued a chargesheet dated 2.3.2004 to the petitioner for disobeying the order of the Administration in violation of Mormugao Port Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal), Regulations 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “MPE Regulations, 1964”).

5. During the enquiry in pursuance of the aforesaid chargesheet, the petitioner filed a written explanation on 29.5.2004 informing the respondent No.1 of the University from which the petitioner obtained his graduation and post-graduation degrees. The petitioner informed him that he passed B.A. in 1995 and M.A. in 1997 from the University Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Bharat Bhavan, Matiyari Chinhat, Faizabad Road, Lucknow.

6. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the respondent No.2 holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The petitioner submitted his written submissions to the Disciplinary Authority, however the same were not accepted and the respondent No.2 issued a memorandum dated 4.5.2005 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and proposed to impose upon him the penalty of “withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect".

7. The petitioner submitted his written submission in response to the proposed penalty but the same was not considered. The penalty of "withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect, with effect from 1.2.2006" was passed vide order dated 18.11.2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same before the Appellate Authority as per MPE Regulations, 1964. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.8.2006 and the matter was closed.

8. On 27.5.2005, a second chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on the same subject. The article of charge against the petitioner was that he had submitted a statement dated 29.5.2004 to the Enquiry Officer who was appointed vide reference dated 25.3.2004, indicating that he completed his graduation, B.A. in the year 1995 and post-graduation, M.A. in the year 1997 at Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Bharat Bhavan, Matiyari Chinhat, Faizabad Road, Lucknow whereas in the attestation form duly filled and signed by the petitioner at the time of his appointment, he had declared that B.A and M.A. degree were obtained by him in the years 1995 and