The Tribunal upheld the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant for gross misconduct, confirming that natural justice was observed and penalties were within the discretion of the authority.

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

Being aggrieved by the impugned memorandum of charge dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure A-4), Enquiry Report dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure A-6), Disciplinary Authorities punishment order dated 06.12.2016 and the Appellate order dated 19.10.2018 (Annexure A-1), the present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the time of issuance of memorandum of charge-sheet dated 01.09.2015, applicant was working on the post of Junior Works Manager, Ordnance Factory, Chanda within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. While the applicant was serving at Ordnance Factory, Nalanda, a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against him. Vide order dated 06.12.2016, the respondent No.2 i.e. the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in the Pay Band of Rs.9,300-34,800/- and Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- (as per VI CPC) for a period of one year. It is further ordered that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

2(a). Against the aforesaid punishment order, the applicant has submitted statutory appeal dated 24.01.2017 to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. However, the same was returned vide communication dated 27.03.2017 to prefer appeal to his Excellency the President of India, New Delhi which is the Appellate Authority. When the said appeal was pending, the applicant has filed OA No.2090/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.04.2018 with the following directions :

“8. The respondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate steps for decision by the Appellate authority on the pending appeal dated 06.04.2017 of applicant within a period of three months from today.

9. Needless to say that the Appellate Authority will pass a reasoned and speaking order on the appeal in accordance with law.

10. The order so passed shall then be communicated to the applicant at the earliest, who will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in case his grievance still persists.

11. The OA, stands disposed off with aforesaid directions at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.”

2(b). Thereafter, the Appellate Authority has passed order dated 07.08.2018, by rejecting the appeal dated 06.04.2017.

2(c). Now by filing the present Original Application, apart from challenging the order dated 07.08.2018 which was communicated vide communication dated 19.10.2018 (Annexure A-1) to the applicant and the punishment order dated 06.12.2016, applicant is also challenging charge-sheet dated 01.09.2015, enquiry report dated 02.09.2016 and also the action of non-grant of Subsistence Allowance as per the rules, and during enquiry the procedure laid down under Sub Rule 17, 15 and 18 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was not followed so as to provide sufficient reasonable opportunity to the applicant for defending his case, in consonance of principles of natural justice.

2(d). It is also submitted that during the course of enquiry, the documents were sought by the applicant which were not provided in spite of applications. Further, during the course of enquiry, the Subsistence Allowance was also reduced from 50% to 40% without any reason. Therefore, the present Original Application has been submitted.

3. After notice, the official respondents have filed reply and contested the OA. It was submitted that the complaint dated 13.06.2015 was received from Shri Kumar Ambedkar, the then AWM and Divisional Officer of Civil Maintenance Section of Ordnance F