The court established that a charge of negligence, even if a solitary incident, can be the subject of a charge memo and upheld the validity of the penalty imposed.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein, feeling aggrieved by punishment order dated 7. 2. 1997 passed by Disciplinary authority as a result of departmental proceedings initiated against him, filed Original Application no. 1181/98. He challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the consequential penalty order on various grounds. However, his O. A. was dismissed by the learned tribunal vide impugned Judgment dated 18. 12. 98 which order is impugned by the petitioner in the instant writ petit ion.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 22. 7. 1985 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965, relating to major penalty proceedings. The following charges were framed against him:

"shri H. C. Dabral. while functioning as asstt. Chief Controller of Imports and exports in the Office of Joint Chief controller of Imports and Exports, ahmedabad during 1980, dealt with the case of M/s. Economic Traders Gujarat ltd. , Rajkot, leading to the issue of additional Licence dated 6. 11. 80 for rs44,60,922/- to the firm, in violation of the Import Policy provisions,. In doing so Shri H. C,dabral, ACCIande did not maintain devotion to duty and violated rule-3 (1) (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) rules, 1964".

( 3 ) NOT only the petitioner, two other officers were also served with the same charges and common proceedings were held against all three officers. The enquiry Officer, after concluding the enquiry, submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner stood proved. The copy of the report dated 18. 2. 93 of the Enquiry Officer was made available to the petitioner who submitted his representation. His case was referred to Union Public Service commission for advice and the Commission vide its letter dated 9. 5. 1994 opined that the charge against him stood proved and ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is retired compulsory as a punishment with 2/3rd admissible pension. However, when the disciplinary Authority considered the case of the petitioner on the basis of entire material on record and in the light of UPSC s advice, the Disciplinary authority observed that UPSC in its advice had failed to notice the import of the charge against the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner was not charged for violating Rule 3 (1) (i) but only Rule 3 (1) (ii) and his integrity was not questioned in these proceedings. It found that the charge against him was of negligence resulting in failure to maintain devotion to duty. Therefore, according to the Disciplinary Authority UPSC had gone far beyond the charge and reached the conclusion that the petitioner acted with mala fide intent. In these circumstances, the Disciplinary authority disagreed with the advise of UPSC on the punishment proposed by the Commission and having regard to the fact charge against the petitioner to the effect that he was negligent in discharging of duties only was established, he was of the view that the petitioner should be imposed minor punishment. Thus the disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction to the next lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years without cumulative effect on the petitioner by reason of the order dated 7. 2. 1997.

( 4 ) THE petitioner, without making a formal appeal as provided under the rules, made a representation to the Appellate Authority submitting that it was not specified in the order as to what exact stage at which the pay had been fixed as a result of this penalty and he had also submitted that without prejudice to his right to seek any other remedy would make the request to the Appellate Authority to make the penalty effective from the date of occurrence and indicating the stage at which his pay had to be fixed as a consequence of this penalty. This was followed up by another detailed representation. The petitioner has referred to these representations as details of remedies exhausted in para 8 of the O. A. with details of which have been giv