The disciplinary authority must comply with the procedural requirements of the relevant rules, including recording reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer and providing the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before recording its findings. The principles of natural justice must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings.

M.M. Kumar, J.

1. The instant petition filed by unsuccessful original applicant under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against order dated 12.5.2003 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity the Tribunal). The Tribunal has upheld the order of punishment, dated 22.3.2002 (Annexure P-2), inflicting upon the petitioner punishment of reduction of pay by three stages in his present pay scale for a period of three years with further direction that the petitioner would not earn increments of pay during the said period and on expiry of the said period the reduction was to have the effect of postponing his future increments.

2. Facts in brief, may be noticed so as to put the controversy in legal slots. The petitioner was selected by the Union Public Service Commission (for brevity the UPSC) and was posted as Group A Officer on the post of Assistant Chief Accounts Officer on 24.8.1987. He was promoted as Chief Accounts Officer/IFA in the year 1991 and remained posted as such in the office of Telecom District Manager, Hisar w.e.f. 20.11.1991 to 15.9.1993. He was further promoted as Director (F&A)/IFAand was transferred to Ludhiana as such.

3. On 19.2.1996, a charge memo (Annexure P-3) was served upon him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, the Rules) by the Disciplinary Authority, namely, respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner was confronted with five charges relating to the period from 20.11.1991 to 15.11.1993 when he was posted as Chief Accounts Officer-cum-Finance Officer in the office of Telecom District Manager, Hisar. On 12.3.1996, he submitted his reply (Annexure P-4) stoutly denying all the articles of charge levelled against him. He also expressed his desire to be heard in person. Adepartmental inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer vide his inquiry report dated 28.7.1999 (Annexure P-6) held that none of the five charges levelled against the petitioner, vide charge memo dated 19.2.1996 (Annexure P-3), could be proved. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. However on 2.8.2000, the Disciplinary Authority served upon the petitioner a communication purported to be a dissenting note (Annexure P-7) and expressed its disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was called upon to make representation against the said communication. Itwould be interesting to read the communication purporting to be dissenting note (Annexure P-7);-

"A copy of inquiry report submitted by Shri K.K.Kulshrestha, ADG (Dl), DOT, New Delhi who was appointed as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against Shri R.L.Jakhu, formerly CAO, O/o TDM, Hissar and now Director (Finance), O/o GMTD, Ludhiana, is forwarded herewith. The Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the findings of the inquiring authority to the following extent:-

(i) That the charged officer failed to point out the irregularities while recommending placement of purchase orders on M/s B.R.EIectricals, New Delhi on the rates approved by J&K Circle for supply of 625 Kms of PVC insulated 2 mm dia meter Galvanised Steel Twin Drop Wire worth 46,80,575 as no tenders were invited as required under the rules in view of huge quantity to be purchased.

(ii) That non-availability certificate had not been obtained from Circle Store Depot, Ambala before making local purchase of 100 lbs Drop Wire.

(iii) That TDMs financial powers for purchase were limited to Rs.2 lakhs on each occasion from the sources other than PSUs.

(iv) That the purchase orders were split up to avoid the necessity for obtaining the sanction of the competent authority required with reference to total amount of the orders in violation of Rules 104 GFRs, 1963. (v) That recommending to TDM, Hissar the local purchase of 50 numbers of Portable Line Testers for a total cost of Rs.2,03,364/- from