IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to procedural compliance, not re-evaluating evidence or findings of misconduct.

ORDER :

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedings No.DOP/07/05678/M/03, dated 16.11.2010 and the consequential proceedings No.DMRL/LC/WP/5880/ Gopalakrishna, dated 21.04.2011 and proceedings No.DOP/07/ 05678/M/03, dated 30.09.2011, issued by the respondents and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Tribunal, dated 27.10.2015 in O.A.No.569 of 2012.

2. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner was appointed as Scientist-B in the respondent No.4-organization in the year 1982 and was promoted as Scientist-D in the year 1993, that in the year 1998, petitioner made an application to the 4th respondent seeking permission to apply for Post Doctoral Fellowship in the United States of America (USA), that 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 06.04.1998 granted permission to the petitioner to apply for the said fellowship; that based on the said permission, petitioner applied to the Cleveland State University, USA for said Fellowship and the said University offered him the post doctoral research vide letter dated 22.04.1998; that petitioner requested the 4th respondent on 04.05.1998 for grant of Extraordinary Leave (EOL) and also for No Objection Certificate (NOC) to pursue his assignment in USA and the said request was forwarded to the 2nd respondent belatedly on 22.05.1998; that as the petitioner had to report in USA by 01.06.1998 and as there was delay on the part of the respondents in giving necessary permission, he left India on 28.05.1998.

4. It is contended that 3rd respondent issued a charge memo dated 28.04.1999 to the petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the alleged misconduct of absenting himself from duty w.e.f. 01.07.1998 without prior sanction of leave and without obtaining any NOC from the competent authority for leaving for USA, that petitioner submitted his resignation, however, the same was rejected by the respondents through proceedings dated 22.09.1999. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo in November, 1999, that not satisfied with the said explanation, respondents proceeded with the inquiry, which was conducted ex parte and a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 09.04.2001, wherein the Inquiry Officer suggested the disciplinary authority to pardon the charged officer, provided the charged officer admits, regrets and apologies in writing for the impetuous and ignorant acts committed by him and the said report was forwarded to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 04.07.2001 and sought for his written statement. Petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter dated 17.09.2001, in which he had stated that he was ready and willing to convey his regrets and offered unconditional apology and requested for grant of EOL and NOC. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 26.11.2001 imposed penalty of removal from service.

5. Aggrieved by the removal proceedings dated 26.11.2001, petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short, Tribunal) by filing O.A.No.1185 of 2003 and the Tribunal, vide order dated 27.04.2007, was pleased to allow the O.A.No.1185 of 2003 and set aside the order dated 26.11.2001. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2007, the respondents approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5880 of 2008 and this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition vide order dated 23.03.2010 and directed the Disciplinary Authority to consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner by imposing minor punishment other than the removal within a period of two months. The Disciplinary Authority was also directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to the period in which petitioner remained absent.

6. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 16.11.2010 imposing punishment of