The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary charges must be based on factual and legal grounds, and the court will scrutinize the application of legal provisions to ensure the charges are sustainable.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the memorandum dt.13.3.2010 initiating disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and the order of penalty/punishment which has been finally inflicted upon him vide order dt.15.7.2010 modified to some extent in departmental appeal vide order dt.18.7.2011.

2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, which are relevant for the purpose leading to examine the matter, are that the writ petitioner while working as Inspector(UB) in SP(S) office, South, Udaipur for some alleged misconduct served with memorandum dt.13.3.2010 along with the Statement of Article of Charge for holding disciplinary enquiry under Regulation 861 of P.R.B., 1943.

3. At the outset, we noticed that in a regular disciplinary enquiry two charges were levelled against the petitioner-delinquent and the enquiry officer found Charge No.I proved out of the two charges levelled against him as it reveals from the enquiry report dt.26.5.2010 and after the copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and taking his comments, the disciplinary authority confirmed/accepted the finding of the enquiry officer in reference to Charge No. I and punished him with a penalty of reducing the pay to the minimum of basic pay for three years without any cumulative effect vide order dt.15.7.2010.

4. That came to be challenged by the petitioner-delinquent in a departmental appeal and in the departmental appeal, the petitioner placed cogent material on record to justify that there was no misconduct of a kind being committed by the petitioner and at the same time, Rule 145 of the Central Treasury Rules has no application in the facts of the given case. The appellate authority although has not interfered with the finding which was recorded by the enquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary authority in respect of Charge No.I but at the same time, considered it appropriate to modify the punishment inflicted upon the writ petitioner-delinquent holding that it does not commensurate with the charge proved and, accordingly, modified the punishment to reduction in pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect vide order dt.18.7.2011.

5. The Article of Charge No. I relevant for the purpose is reproduced herein below :

“ARTICLE OF CHARGE –I

Inspr.(UB) Asit Kumar Das is charged for gross misconduct and dereliction in duty, in that while he was posted to SP(S) office as DDO, on 01.02.10 he issued a back dated duplicate Acquaintance Roll of TA Bill No.1368 dated 16.10.2006 in respect of Inspr.(UB) Gopal Brahma, the then O/C cum CI Santirbazar PS, amounting Rs.3,240/-without the knowledge of Head of office, contravening the application of financial power rules pertaining to prudence to be exercised by DDO which is unbecoming on the part of the disciplined and responsible police officer.

6. The main thrust of submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 145 of the Central Treasury Rules apply where the government officer has asked for issuance of duplicate copies of bills or other documents for the payment of money which has already been paid on the allegation that originals have been lost but in the instant case, indisputably no payment was made to the government officer(complainant) and on issuance of duplicate copies of bills or other documents which are duly verified at the first instance by the (Ex-cashier)Head Clerk of the SP(S) Office, South, Sri Ashok Acharjee, payment was made to the government officer(complainant Inspr.(UB) Sri Gopal Chandra Brahma). The premise on which allegation was made against the petitioner for issuance of duplicate copies of bills or other documents for payment of money to the government officer, is factually incorrect and was not at all a misconduct of a kind being committed by him for which he was charge sheeted.

7. Counsel further submits that in a given point of time when the petitioner-delinquent was posted to SP(S) office South, Udaipur, as DDO on 01.02.2010, o