O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present OA, the applicant has challenged (i) the charge memorandum dated 27.06.2016 vide which a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Annexure A-1) (ii) disagreement note vide which the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the report furnished by the Inquiry Officer (Annexure A-2) (iii) disciplinary order dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure A-3) vide which penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, with further directions that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay was inflicted upon the applicant and also (iv) the Appellate Order dated 29.05.2018 (Annexure A-4) vide which the applicant's statutory appeal was rejected.

2. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“1. To quash and set aside the impugned Memo dt. 27.6.2016, Disagreement Note, Order of Punishment dt. 26.5.2017 and Appellate Order dt. 29.5.2018 with respect to Charge No. 2 and direct the respondents to restore to the applicant his original pay and increments with all consequential benefits including promotion/seniority and arrears of pay

2. To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.”

3. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed counter reply. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record.

5. Though various grounds have been pleaded by the applicant in support of his claim however, at this stage, Sh. Anil Singal, learned counsel restricts his arguments, with liberty to the applicant to plead and raise all other grounds available to him under law, only to the ground that (i) the impugned disagreement note is vitiated inasmuch as the applicant was exonerated from the allegations leveled against him vide the Inquiry Officer's report dated 18.01.2017, however, the Disciplinary Authority has issued the impugned disagreement note vide which he has neither given a tentative reason for disagreement nor is the disagreement tentative in nature inasmuch as the same bears the Disciplinary Authority's conclusive and final opinion on the matter (ii) that the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority in the impugned orders of penalty have not considered the applicant's all contentions in accordance with the rules and, therefore, the same are also vitiated.

6. To elaborate, Sh. Singal, learned counsel explains that what has been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer is nothing but reproduction of the allegations made against the applicant in the article of charges, may be in a different form. He further adds that the Disciplinary Authority while recording the alleged grounds for dissenting with the Inquiry Officer’s report has said that as tentative disagreement, however while concluding, has given his final opinion.

Thus, the impugned disagreement note is vitiated.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the issue of disagreement note being invalid had been raised by the applicant before the Disciplinary Authority as well as before the Appellate Authority in his statutory appeal however, the same have not been examined by the authorities concerned and, therefore, the impugned Disciplinary and Appellate Orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD. ITI Ltd. & Anr., report