Penalty in disciplinary proceedings must be based on established charges; if the main charge is not proved, subsequent derivative charges cannot justify a penalty.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned standing counsel, APDCL, appearing for the respondents No 2 to 5.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has assailed an order dated 30.10.2017, issued by the Managing Director, APDCL, imposing upon him a penalty of “Stoppage of 2 (two)annual increments” on conclusion of a Departmental Proceeding instituted against him. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to the Enquiry Report dated 29.03.2017 as well as the order dated 02.08.2018, passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the said order dated 30.10.2017.

3. The Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner on 08.10.2015, instituted a Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner with regard to misconducts committed by him during his tenure of service as Sub-Divisional Engineer, Rangapara Electrical Sub Division w.e.f 01.06.2011 to 04.03.2015. Three Charges were so framed against the petitioner basing on the allegations set out against him in the “statement of allegations” appended to the said Charge-Sheet dated 08.10.2015.

4. The petitioner on receipt of the said Charge-sheet dated 08.10.2015, proceeded to submit his written statement of defense in the matter on 23.11.2015 and therein, denied the allegations leveled against him and prayed for being exonerated from the charges so framed.

5. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner not being satisfied with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his written statement, proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry in the matter and accordingly an enquiry was so held.

6. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to submit his enquiry report on 29.05.2017, and therein, while holding the Charge No. 1, leveled against the petitioner to be not proved, held the Charge No. 2 and 3, to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner vide communication dated 23.05.2017, forwarded the said enquiry report to the petitioner and also indicated therein that a penalty of stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner vide his representation dated 10.07.2017, dealt with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and prayed therein that he be also exonerated from Charge Nos. 2 & 3. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, on consideration of the matter proceeded vide order dated 30.10.2017, to impose upon the petitioner, a penalty of “stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments”. With the imposition of the said penalty, the Disciplinary Proceeding instituted against the petitioner vide the Charge-Sheet dated 08.10.2015, was disposed of.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2017, proceeded to prefer an appeal in the matter before the appellate authority vide his appeal memo dated 27.12.2017. The appellate authority, i.e., the Board of Directors of the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. on consideration of the appeal preferred by the petitioner proceeded vide order dated 02.04.2018, to reject the said appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings with the reliefs as noticed herein above:

8. Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the penalty imposed upon the petitioner has