JUDGMENT

B. PANIGRAHI, J. — Petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed by Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.445 of 1992 dated 8.2.2000 dismissing the petitioner’s application and upholding the punishment imposed by the Opposite Parties.

2. The petitioner has been working as an Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, Berhampur Range, from 31.5.1990 to 29.11.1990. During the period of his incumbency, it was found that he did not ensure proper discipline and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming on the part of a Government servant. Therefore, the authorities had transferred the petitioner from Berhempur Range to Rayagada Range vide transfer order No. 82/Estt/90 dated 7.5.1990. But the petitioner avoided to join in his new place of posting of different pretext as a result of which different charges had been framed for disobedience of the order in not joining at his new place of posting. During pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he was also kept under suspen¬sion. Pursuant to the charge, he submitted his show cause and written statement of defence. In his defence statement, he has stated that on account of availing leave at the time of transfer as he suddenly suffered from acute Acid Peptic Ulcer and became unfit to work, therefore, he could not joint at his new place of posting and from time to time he extended the leave and during that period he also submitted a representation to the authority for review of his transfer. But such prayer for keeping the order of transfer in abeyance did not yield any result. The enquiring authority after examining the evidence in detail found the officer to be truant, defiant and disobedient and, therefore, suggested to impose a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by such order preferred an appeal before Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubanes¬war, but the appellate authority also did not find any reason to differ from the order of the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the punishment imposed against the petitioner was confirmed. It was, inter alia, observed by the appellate authority that the disciplinary authority has since taken a lenient view by imposing a minor penalty in stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, therefore, there was no reason to interfere. The disci¬plinary authority in his finding has held that the petitioner although had applied for leave on account of his illness, how could he undertake a journey of 350 kms to and fro from Berhampur to Bhubaneswar. He had also stated that the representation pur¬ported to have been submitted by the petitioner was only a ploy to avoid transfer and accordingly such punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed. He has also further directed that the period of unauthorised absence from 25.5.92 to 28.11.90 be treated as leave without pay and would not count for period of service.

4. The Tribunal also looking into the facts of the case has, however, observed that it has not come across any procedural of lapse or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority.

5. Mr. Kanungo has, however, tried to persuade us that while the disciplinary authority imposed penalty under Rule-11, Class-(iv) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as C.C.S (C.C.A)Rules’’ though charges were framed for major penalties. The authorities also found that although the departmental pro¬ceeding was initiated for imposing major penalties but taking a sympathetic and lenient view, only imposed stoppage of two incre¬ments with cumulative effect. It has been contended that such stoppage of two increments amounts to imposition of major penalty which comes under Rule-11, Clause-(v) to Clause-(xi). We don’t find any merit in his submission inasmuch as assuming that the charges were framed for major penalties but there is no bar for the disciplinary