Two charge sheets for same incident invalid; procedural lapses in enquiry, including unexamined CCTV, violate natural justice.

Order 

By Shri Kumar Rajesh Chandra, AM.

The Original application has been filed against the impugned Charge Sheets alleging that the charge sheets and further proceedings on the basis of these are arbitrary and both the charge sheets are the parts of same transaction and non est in the eyes of law.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case of the applicant are that he was appointed as Junior Account Assistant (JAA) and posted in the Traffic Branch. A show-cause notice was issued by the respondent no. 4 stating the applicant has caused obstacle to other persons in discharging their official duties and when he was instructed not to enter into the chamber of Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer/ Traffic (herein after referred as ‘FA & CAO/T’ for brevity) he misbehaved with Shri Ajay Raj who was posted as Personal Assistant-II and caused injury to him. Further, applicant replied to the show cause but he alleges that without considering his reply, Disciplinary Authority passed an order to conduct departmental enquiry against him. Enquiry officer submitted his inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. Prima facie the applicant was found guilty of misconduct and assaulting Shri Ajay Raj PS-II. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order wherein applicant was held guilty of misconduct and violating rules and regulation. Further, he imposed a penalty of withholding next due two annual increments of pay with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by such order, applicant preferred an appeal before appellate authority stating such order has been passed without appreciating material evidences which are available on record. Further, enquiry officer has heavily relied upon CCTV recording which was not played in his presence and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him to cross-examine witnesses over the same. Appellate authority passed an order wherein it dismissed the appeal of the applicant and maintained order of penalty passed by Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by order, applicant preferred revision appeal before General Manager but same was dismissed without assigning any reason and he also maintained order of penalty passed by Disciplinary Authority.

3. The applicant submits that on 15.11.2019, he was served with another show cause notice regarding violation of protocol and breach of office decorum. Following show cause notice, the applicant was served with another charge sheet under Rule 9 of Rules of 1968 for violation of Rule 3 (1) (ii) & 3 (i) (iii) of Conduct Rules 1966. In the proceeding, the applicant was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect. In appeal, the Appellate Authority modified this penalty to stoppage of one set of privilege pass and one set of PTO (Privilege Ticket Order).

4. It is the case of the applicant that the action of the respondents is biased as the proper procedure has not been followed and applicant has not been provided fair chance to represent his case. The applicant is subjected to be victim of double jeopardy as he has faced two departmental enquiries on same set of charges and both were issued on very same day which is blatant violation of Rules of 1968.

5. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority issued first charge-sheet to the applicant under Rules of 1968 for the charge of unauthorised entry without permission into Chamber of FA&CAO (WST) in the absence of FA&CAO (WST). The post of FA&CAO (WST) involves dealing with sensitive work and una