The main legal point established is the requirement for strict compliance with disciplinary rules, including the obligation to hold a joint inquiry as ordered and to follow the provisions of Rule 14 and Rule 15.

JUDGMENT :

P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.

In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 19.02.2019 passed in O.A. No./050/00143/2016 and M.A. No./050/00256/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'CAT, Patna Bench').

2. The petitioner while working as Assistant Auditor Officer he was placed under suspension on 08.08.2013 and he was charge-sheeted on 24.10.2013 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'Rules, 1965'). The petitioner denied all the seven charges framed against him while submitting reply on 04.11.2013. The disciplinary authority revoked the order of suspension on 04.11.2013. However, he was not satisfied with the petitioner's reply dated 04.11.2013 on seven charges. In the result, Inquiring Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. In the meanwhile, on 04.11.2013 common proceedings were initiated under Rule 18 of Rules, 1965 to hold enquiry against the petitioner and two others namely Shri Hemant Kumar, Sr. Audit Officer and Shri Bhopal Kumar, Sr. Auditor. The Inquiring Officer has ignored the common proceedings order dated 04.11.2013 (Annexure P-4) and proceeded to hold individual inquiry against petitioner and two others namely Shri Hemant Kumar and Shri Bhopal Kumar. The Inquiring Officer submitted report while holding that charge one to six were partly proved and charge number seven was not proved. On receipt of Inquiring Officer's report, disciplinary authority proceeded to disagree with the Inquiring Officer's report insofar as not proved charges and proceeded to issue show cause notice. Disagreeing with the Inquiring Officer's report and not proved charges proceeded to issue show cause notice (second show cause notice) on 21.07.2014 for which petitioner had submitted his reply on 04.08.2014. Thereafter, disciplinary authority proceeded to impose penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years and during the currency of aforesaid penalty the petitioner is not entitled to increments which are due to him.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of penalty dated 25.08.2014 petitioner preferred memorandum of appeal before Appellate Authority on 02.10.2014 and it was rejected on 06.05.2015. The petitioner filed O.A.No. 050/ 00143/2016 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's original application, hence, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a non-compliance to Rule 14(4) and so also Rule 15(2) of Rules, 1965. It is further submitted that when the disciplinary authority by its order dated 04.11.2013 passed an order there would be common proceedings against the petitioner and two others. The Inquiring Officer should have commenced the joint inquiry and concluded. It is also submitted that disciplinary authority has not withdrawn the order of common proceedings dated 04.11.2013. Therefore, the Inquiring Officer is bound by the order/direction of the disciplinary authority to hold joint inquiry against the petitioner and two others. It is also submitted that even though twenty six documents have been cited in support of the seven charges and it is required to be proved by relevant witnesses like author of the documents. On the other hand, while issuing charge memo under Sub-rule 4 of Rule 14 of Rules, 1965 the disciplinary authority failed to furnish list of witnesses. On the other hand, annexure to the charge memo insofar as list of witnesses is concerned it is stated nil.

5. It is further submitted that CAT, Patna Bench could not apprise the issue of common proceedings even though it was pleaded in the original application and further proceeded to uphold the imposition of penalty and its confirmation by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal has committed error in not noticing the legal issues that the Inquiring Authority has failed to hold joint inquiry in