ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A): By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-

“(a).

Issue order or direction quashing the impugned order bearing No.AF.30063/RP- 3/2021/KVS (Written)/2750-53, dated 28.12.2021 as passed by the Ld. Revision Authority, Joint Commissioner (Training) & Revision Authority;

(b). Issue order or direction quashing the Memorandum F.24 /Discp/KVM/2018- 19/4566, dated 15.01.2019 as passed by the Respondent No.1;

(c) And pass such other or further order/orders as Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as indicated in the OA are the applicant who is a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) joined Kendriya Vidyalaya on 21.08.2010. On 28.06.2018, the applicant during his course of work, in 1st period, was taking a class of Mathematics in Class IX-C of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Moradabad, wherein he, for official purpose, was using his Mobile Phone to collect SBSB related information and wherein the applicant was assisted by 2 students of the (3) same class, namely, Ms. Lipi Singh & Ms. Saloni Singh, being the Monitors of the said Class.

3. Thereafter, on 13.01.2019, a Memorandum dated 15.01.2019 was issued by Respondent No. 2, wherein the applicant was erroneously charged sheeted under CCA/CCS Rule 3 (10/4, 6. Hi, xviii, six and KVS Education Code Chapter VI, 34ja) i, ii, ii and 35 for the use of Mobile Phone during the course of the class, showing negligence towards the duty as prescribed in the service rules. A day after the issuance of the said frivolous Memorandum for a trivial wrong, the applicant filed an application dated 16.01.2019, addressed to Respondent No. 2, wherein it was stated and clarified that on 28.06.2018 the applicant was using the Mobile Phone for collecting SBSB related information as required and vide a letter namely KVS(HQ) New Delhi letter No.110335/01/2017- 18/KVS(HQ)/SP/SBSB made a claim for reimbursement of Rs.100/- for the data as used in such collection.

4. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority [under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965] passed an ex parte order imposing a baseless penalty without issuing any warning against the applicant whereby it was stated that the applicant shall not be granted any increment in salary, without cumulative, for a period of (4) 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2022, with respect to the Memorandum dated 15.01.2019. It is submitted that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant approached the Deputy Commissioner, KVS, RO, Agra, being the appellate authority and filed an appeal dated 09.10.2019, wherein it was stated that there were procedural defaults while imposing the said penalty and showed the grounds for the biasness of the Respondent No. 2 towards the applicant and further stated that the principals of natural justice were defied in passing of such baseless order dated 12.09.2019. The appellate authority after considering the grounds, as laid down in the appeal, passed an order dated 17.09.2020 wherein the appellate authority only toned down the punishment by withholding one increment for a period of one year without cumulative w.e.f. 01.07.2020 to 30.06.2021. It is crucial to state that such order was passed without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Thereafter, being aggrieved with the order dated 17.09.2020 passed by the appellate authority, the applicant filed a revision petition before the Joint Commissioner (Training) & Revisioning Authority, KVS, RO, Agra, the Respondent No.1 wherein the applicant stated that the act for which the applicant was charged was not against the service rules and moreover the (5) Memorandum dated 15.01.2019 was fabricated with the motive to mentally harass the applicant. It is also submitted that the Respondent No.1 erroneously ignored the