The disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction and followed due process in removing the applicant from service, affirming the importance of competent authority in disciplinary actions.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):

By way of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985:-

(i) That by an appropriate order direction, instruction the disciplinary authority’s order dated 02.04.2011 (annexure A-1.a) may kindly be quashed and set aside and applicant be re-instated to his post.

(ii) By an appropriate order direction, instruction the respondents be directed to make the payment and allowances minus amount paid from the date of impugned order dated 26.09.2011 (annexure A-1.b).

(iii) Humble applicant be allowed all benefits attached to the post without any break or loss with all consequential benefits as if he has been in continuous service, as if no adverse order have been passed against him.

(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as could be gleaned from the study of the files and based on the arguments of the learned counsels, are that the applicant, who was initially recruited as Technical Assistant ‘B’ (Electrical) at National Council of Science Museum (NCSM), Calcutta, on 04.04.1994, while working in a subsequently promoted post as Technical Officer ‘A’ (Electrical) in the National Science Centre Delhi (NSCD), Delhi, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Section 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules , 1965. There were 9 Articles of Charge running to more than 10 pages, which we do not consider necessary to reproduce here in our order. A perusal of the charges reveals that the respondents were peeved with the in-subordinate nature of the applicant and also they allege lack of financial integrity on the part of the applicant on account of having stayed in the respondents’ guest house without paying the accommodation charges despite being told to do so and eventually, the respondents had to recover the accommodation charges from his salary.

3. Suffice it to say that, the respondents initiated the disciplinary inquiry by filing a charge-sheet dated 31.01.2009 containing 9 Articles of Charge along with the detailed Statement of Imputation of Misconduct, and after a detailed inquiry in which the Inquiring Authority held all the 9 charges as proved, issued the impugned order dated 02.04.2011 wherein the disciplinary authority, i.e., Director-in-charge, NSCD (respondent no.2) invoking the powers conferred on him by Appendix ‘C’ of Bye-laws of NCSM read with sub-rule 4 of Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules , 1965 as adopted by the NCSM, ordered removal of the applicant from the service.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the applicant filed an appeal dated 14.06.2011 to the Appellate Authority, namely Director General, NCSM (Respondent No.3). The Appellate Authority considered the appeal of the applicant and passed his order dated 26.09.2011 wherein he confirmed the penalty of removal from service on the applicant awarded by the disciplinary authority. However, considering the fact that the applicant has a family consisting of wife and two unmarried daughters and taking a sympathetic and humanitarian view, the Appellate Authority ordered that the applicant be granted compassionate allowance in the form of pension of Rs.5700/- per month plus D.R. and gratuity as admissible in terms of sub-rule(1) of Rule 41 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as adopted by the NCSM. The applicant was not satisfied with the order of the appellate authority and filed a revision petition dated 27.06.2012 and thereafter a review petition dated 10.08.2015 before the President of the Governing Society of NCSM who is also the Hon’ble Minister for Culture who considered and affirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant commenced his arguments and drew our attention to a number of grounds based on which he has challenged the impugned orders of the respondents. However,