The order of punishment passed by the competent authority is in accordance with law as proper opportunity was granted during the enquiry to the appellant.

S.K. Gangele, J.;—

1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dt. 12.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2320/2004 (S). By the aforesaid order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner. A charge sheet was served on the appellant vide memo of charge dt. 13.12.1982. Two charges were levelled against him. Charge No. 1 was that he was posted from 20.6.1975 to 30.5.1980 as Industries Extension Officer at Gwalior and during that period he had made recommendation for issuance of registration certificate to M/s. Gangaram Nemichand, Jinsi Nala No. 2, Gwalior. The second charge was that the appellant submitted false information in regard to existence of the unit and due to the aforesaid act, the raw material iron and steel had been supplied to the firm and same was sold in black market. An enquiry was conducted and after enquiry the order of punishment of compulsory retirement was passed on 23.9.1993 against the appellant. He challenged the order of punishment before the State Administrative Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal vide order dt. 20.11.1997 quashed the order of punishment on the ground that no second show cause notice alongwith enquiry report was issued to the appellant, hence, the order of punishment was in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution and remanded the matter back to the department to proceed further after supplying the copy of the charge sheet and enquiry report to the appellant. Tribunal further observed that looking to the facts of the case lesser punishment be awarded to the appellant.

3. Thereafter, on 5.4.1999 a show cause notice alongwith enquiry report was issued to the appellant. He submitted his reply, then disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment and imposed punishment of downgrading for a period of five years and on minimum of pay scale vide order dt. 2.8.2001. Subsequently, the order of punishment was modified vide another order dt. 8.4.2002 and by the aforesaid order, it was directed that during the period of five years, the appellant shall not be entitled for increment and stagnation allowance. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed, that has also been dismissed vide order dt. 5.4.2005.

4. The appellant challenged the orders of punishment dt. 2.8.2001 and 8.4.2002 (Annexure P/1) and order of dismissal of appeal dt. 5.4.2005 in the writ petition.

5. The Writ Court dismissed the petition after observing that proper opportunity was granted during the enquiry to the appellant. Tribunal remanded the matter back on limited ground, hence, the order of punishment passed by the competent authority is in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the enquiry officer found the charges proved against the appellant on the basis of the evidence of the employees, who conducted the preliminary enquiry. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the charge No. 2 was not proved by the enquiry officer and charge No. 1 was found proved. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, which is hearsay, misconduct could not be proved. He also contended that the charge sheet is vague and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. No documentary evidence was produced during the enquiry. He further submitted that subsequently the disciplinary authority amended the order of punishment which is contrary to law because before passing the order no show cause notice was issued to the appellant and once the disciplinary authority becomes functus officio, second order could not be passed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-

(i) Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A. Venkata Rayudu (2007) 1 SCC 368

(ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others (2006) 5 SCC 88.

(iii) Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance (2006) 3 SCC 713

(iv) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujrat 2013 LE (SC) 181

(v) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC