Disciplinary Authorities must provide compelling reasons for diverging from an Inquiry Officer's findings and uphold principles of natural justice, ensuring fair opportunity for representation.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The present Petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari and appropriate writ or order and/or direction for quashing the impugned order dated 17th December, 2007, passed by the Disciplinary Authority thereby withholding the increment of the petitioner for a period of one year without cumulative effect.

2. The brief background of the matter is that the petitioner was working as Manager, Air Traffic Control (ATC) in Airports Authority of India, New Delhi. He was transferred from New Delhi to Mumbai on inter-regional transfer vide order bearing No. CHQ NO. 2/3/2002/EA/1058-69 dated 24th April 2002 and was relieved of his duties at New Delhi, Airport with effect from 30th April 2002.

3. The petitioner joined the office of Mumbai on 11th July 2002, after lapse of 71 days, including admissible joining time of 12 days and leave for 59 days, on medical record owing to poor health conditions. After taking over of charge at Mumbai office as Manager (ATC), the petitioner applied for a leave for 15 days from 26th July 2002 to 9th August 2002 along with the station leaving permission to proceed to New Delhi on 11th July 2002, however, the petitioner could not return to Mumbai office after the period of his leave ended. The petitioner also remained absent from his duties till 24th March 2003 on account of his sudden ill health. He reported for duty on dated 25th March 2003 after long period of absence of 227 days and submitted leave application on the same day along with medical certificates including fitness certificate.

4. The Respondent issued memorandum proposing to hold an inquiry against petitioner under Regulation 29 of the Airports Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2003 on account that the petitioner failed to maintain devotion to his duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of him as an employee of the authority, thereby, violating Rules 4 (1)(B),(C) and (D) and 5 (V), (VI), (VII), (XXVIII) and (XXXV) of the said Regulations. Memorandum of Charge dated 23rd November 2004 was filed by the respondents whereby the following statement of charges framed against the petitioner were made:

"Article-1 Shri Avinash Chander. Manager (ATC) remained absent from duty without prior intimation/sanction of leave from 1st May 2002 to 10th July 2002 on 71 days. Medical certificate dated 10th July 2002 was submitted only after reporting at duty.

Article-2 Shri Avinash Chander while functioning as Manager (ATC). Wider Receiver remained absent from duty without prior intimation/sanction of leave from 10th August 2002 to 24th March 2003 on 227 days."

5. The petitioner replied to the said memorandum and gave explanation as regards to the charges against the petitioners on dated 21st December 2004.

6. The respondent appointed Shri L.R. Singh, Additional General Manager (Comm.) as inquiry authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner under by sub-regulation 4 of regulation 29 of 2003 and the sent notice to the petitioner, subsequently, the preliminary hearing commenced of the departmental inquiry on dated 5th April 2005. The respondent withheld the annual increments of the petitioner, which were due on 1st January 2003, 1st January 2004 & 1st January 2005, till the finalization of his case vide letter dated 15th June 2005. Aggrieved by the withholding of the increments of the petitioner, he approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction.