Point of Law: Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

K.R.Surana, J.

Heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, the learned A.S.G.I. for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. At the insistence of the learned counsel/ senior counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter has been heard at the “admission” stage.

3. The legality of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2019, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (herein after referred to as the “learned Tribunal” for brevity) in O.A. No. 40/425/2018 has been assailed by the petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal had directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith, however, by granting liberty to the petitioners to consider imposition of lesser punishment proportionate to the lapse alleged to have been committed by the respondent.

4. Bereft of details, for the purpose of this order, it would be relevant to mention that at the relevant time, the respondent was discharging his duty as the Senior Auditor in the establishment of Controller of Defence Accounts, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as ‘CDA’ for brevity) under the Ministry of Defence. Certain explanation was called from the respondent and on considering his reply, the CDA had served a Memorandum of Charges dated 05.10.2015 to the respondent, with the following enclosures, viz., Articles of Charges (Annexure-I), a statement of the imputations of misconduct in support of each article of charge (Annexure-II), list of documents (Annexure-III), list of documents (Annexure-IV). The respondent submitted his written statement of defence on 16.10.2015. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.12.2015, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. In the disciplinary proceeding, inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.05.2016, wherein it was held that the Article I, II and III as proved and Article IV as not proved. Thereafter, the respondent had submitted his parawise reply dated 06.07.2016 to the charges framed by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the Inquiry Report dated 30.05.2016, written reply dated 06.07.2016, passed an order dated 12.08.2016, thereby holding that prima facie it appears that large scale financial irregularities were involved in the act of the charged official and the Inquiry Officer has held the charges as proved, the finalization of the inquiry proceeding had become inconclusive and that to ensure that the disciplinary case in respect of the respondent is disposed of as quickly as possible and for the sake of natural justice it had become utmost necessary to prove the charges on the basis of material evidence, i.e. bank account statement of the respondent, his spouse and dependent child for the period from 18.06.2012 to 31.07.2014 verifying the entries therein and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority directed that in terms of Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as “CCS (CCA) Rules” for brevity] that a further inquiry in the case may be held by the Inquiry Officer as regards to the Article of Charges against the respondent.

5. The respondent had submitted his representation dated 22.08.2016 against the proposed fresh inquiry and requested the Assistant CDA to review his case sympathetically. The said represented was rejected by letter dated 23.08.2016 as misleading and baseless in the belated stage and as there was no substance in it and the respondent was asked to extend his full cooperation in the inquiry proceeding. The respondent submitted another representation dated 21.09.2016 before the Disciplinary Authority and by letter dated 06.10.2016, the