JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 19.02.2020 (Annexure-5), by which he has been imposed with a minor penalty of withholding one increment of pay for a period of 1 (one) year w.e.f. 01.07.2020, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension by the respondent No. 5 in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 11 (iv) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS CCA Rules). The petitioner has also challenged the Speaking and Reasoned Order passed by the respondent No. 4 on 16.06.2020 (Annexure-7) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirming the penalty imposed upon him by the respondent No. 5.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who is working as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the respondent No. 3 organization was issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 14.12.2019 stating that he left from 71 RCC (GREF) w.e.f. 11.10.2019 without taking leave certificate and without informing concerned officials and Section-In-Charge which showed casual attitude and setting an example of indiscipline before other troops. Further, his wife submitted an application on 20.10.2019 to the higher authorities and by-passed the channel of command which resulted in violation of the provisions of Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (CCS Conduct Rules), rendering him of unbecoming a Government Servant. He was therefore asked to explain within 10 days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his casual attitude, indiscipline and unbecoming conduct and failing which, necessary disciplinary action under the CCS (CCA) Rules will be initiated against him.

4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the respondent No. 5 on 31.12.2019 explaining that it was due to his illness that he had to leave the station and despite applying for leave, leave was not granted to him by the Officer Commanding 71 RCC (GRRF). He, therefore, sent an E-Mail to the State Authority on 10.10.2019 before leaving station. He also stated that the Officer Commanding granted him leave for the period of his absence, after he joined back his duty and was declare medically fit. Under the circumstance, the petitioner requested that disciplinary action may not be taken against him.

5. The respondent No. 5, however, issued Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 by which, it was provided that action against the petitioner was proposed under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and therefore, he was given 10 days’ time to submit his representation. Along with memorandum, the statement of the imputations of misconduct was given to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply against the Memorandum of 22.01.2020 denying the charges leveled against him but however, the respondent No. 5 vide Order dated 19.02.2020 imposed a minor penalty upon the petitioner in the manner as already stated herein above. On submitting an appeal against the order of penalty, the same was rejected by the appellate authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on account of his illness that the petitioner had left the station but before doing so, the petitioner had submitted his application for leave before the Controlling Officer on 09.10.2019 which however was not allowed. He then submitted his leave application by E-Mail to the Officer Commanding 71 RCC (GREF) on 10.10.2019 and thereafter, left the station on 11.10.2019. His wife being worried about the situation in the home-front as well as for the petitioner, submitted an application/representation to the respondent authorities on 20.10.2019. In response to the representation, the respondent authority granted 15 days leave to the petitioner and the same was sent by post to his home address. The leave permiss