The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify the penalty imposed by the employer, even in cases where the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, (Oral) J. - The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 20.02.2006 vide which he has been dismissed from service after rendering about 20 years of service with the respondents. The petitioner also assails the consequential order dated 10.08.2009 vide which his service appeal has been rejected as also the order dated 15.03.2013 rejecting his mercy petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the year 1986 with the respondents. On 21.09.2004, while the petitioner was discharging his duties as peon in the Court of the learned MACT, Karkardooma Courts, a complaint against him was made by Shri Shiv Raj Bhat, Civil Nazir attached with the said Court alleging therein that the petitioner had abused and threatened him. It was further alleged that even in the past, the petitioner had been misbehaving with him and other staff members attached with the Court.

3. Based on this complaint, a preliminary inquiry was held which was followed by a departmental inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. During the inquiry, two witnesses including the complainant were examined by the respondent. The petitioner, however, neither led any evidence nor cross-examined the witnesses examined by the respondent and simply stated that the charge levelled against him was vague as the same did not contain any particulars of the time and place of the incident and was solely based on a false complaint made by Shri Shiv Raj Bhat on account of his past differences with the petitioner when they were earlier posted together.

4. Based on the evidence led by the respondent, the inquiry officer, vide his report dated 07.01.2006, held the petitioner guilty of misbehaviour and misconduct with the court staff as also with one of the Presiding Officers. The petitioner was then served with a memorandum dated 20.01.2006 under Rule 15 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and was granted an opportunity to submit his representation against the inquiry report. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, vide his representation dated 02.02.2006 stated that the he was not given any opportunity to defend his case or appoint a legal practitioner. He further alleged that since the witnesses in the inquiry were senior officers of the department, the same was held with a biased mind. The respondent, finding no merit in the petitioner's representation, passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2006, dismissing him from service.

5. The petitioner then preferred an appeal and a mercy petition, both of which were also rejected leading to the filing of the present petition.

6. The primary contention of Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner has been held guilty of misconduct and misbehaviour on the basis of a vague and non-specific motivated complaint made by Shri Shiv Raj Bhat. He submits that in order to lead credence to his false complaint, Shri Shiv Raj Bhat also referred to an earlier incident of 1993 despite being well aware that the inquiry in the said matter had already been closed. He further submits that even during the inquiry, the petitioner was never provided with adequate opportunity to defend himself and was also declined an opportunity of personal hearing by the disciplinary authority who failed to appreciate that the petitioner was falsely implicated by Shri Shiv Raj Bhat. Without prejudice to his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Kumar finally submits that the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner, which was based on a false and vague complaint was shockingly disproportionate especially taking into account his long service of 20 years. He, therefore, prays that the penalty of dismissal be modified to that of compulsory retirement so that the petitioner, who is aged about 60 years and has no source of livelihood, can sustain himself and at least live a life of dignity by rece