ORDER

PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “1. To quash the impugned punishment order dated 04.08.2017 and order dated 27.09.2018, contained as Annexure No. A-1 & A-2 to this OA, with all consequential benefits.

2. To release the recovered amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.

3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

4. Cost of the present case.”

3. Tersely put, the case of the applicant is that applicant joined the Respondent Department in the year 1985 as Junior Engineer. Disciplinary Authority issued a chargesheet to the applicant leveling therein two charges on 23.09.2015. After completion of inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted report on 19.05.2017. Disciplinary Authority issued a letter on 13.06.2017 whereby applicant was asked to show cause on the point of disagreement notified by the Disciplinary Authority. Against disagreement note aforesaid, applicant submitted a detailed and exhaustive representation on 10.07.2017. Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment to the effect of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of 2 years, with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have effect of postponing the further increment of his pay, which is impugned in this OA.

4. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and as such he issued a disagreement note vide letter dated 13.06.2017 and a copy of the same was served upon applicant asking him to submit his representation. The disciplinary authority considering the charges leveled against the applicant in the charge-sheet, report of the inquiry officer and the defence representation of the applicant came to the conclusion that applicant committed a grave misconduct, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and the charges tentatively proved. Hence, order under challenge in the present OA is legally perfect.

5. Applicant by filing rejoinder affidavit reiterated the averments made in the Original application. Further stated that disciplinary authority submitted his disagreement note with predetermined guilt of notion and just to punish the applicant. Disciplinary authority failed to taken into consideration that the findings of the inquiry officer are based on appreciation of the evidence led during the course of enquiry.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that disagreement note, which is at pages from 171 to 174 of the paperbook is not tentative in nature rather Disciplinary Authority has recorded clear cut findings of misconduct lack of devotion to duty, hence, disagreement note is in violation of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported [1998 (7) SCC 84]. Further submitted that principles of natural justice have been violated on account of definite findings of misconduct.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that in disagreement note (Annexure A-8), the word tentatively has been written, hence, judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kunj Bihari Misra (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. OA deserves to be dismissed.

8. In Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations:

“The r