Disciplinary proceedings must observe due process and require substantial evidence; merely procedural lapses do not constitute misconduct.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant in para 8 of the OA has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“(i) to quash and set aside the Order No. 1/21/DIV/2010- VSII/AV.I dated 28.10.2015 (A-1), Charge Sheet dated 14.12.2010 (A-2) and Inquiry Report dated 11.06.2014 (A-3).

(ii) to declare the action of respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings and appointing I.O. & P.O. as illegal and accordingly quash and set aside the Charge Memo dated 14.12.2010 as well as subsequent orders and direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant withheld on account of said proceedings/penalty order.

(iii) to pass other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the present Original Application. The applicant has also filed his rejoinder denying the contention of the counter affidavit and reiterated his claim in the OA.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was subjected to disciplinary action vide Charge memo dated 26.05.2010 on the allegation that while working as AEE, Mysore Division, CPWD during 15.04.1997 to 13.09.2000, as EE in Nanded Central Divison, Maharashtra during 14.09.2000 to 14.06.2004 and as EE in Mysore Central Division during 30.06.2004 to 30.04.2006 one did not inform certain transactions and availed LTC for the block year 2000-01 for his family members inspite of having income of Rs.40,000/- from other sources. The applicant states that the applicant submitted reply to the said charge memo with all necessary details and requested to drop the proceedings as they were based on factually incorrect allegations. As the said reply was not considered, therefore, the applicant sent reminder on 14.03.2011. After receipt of the reminder, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed I.O. and P.O. mechanically in violation of Rule 14 (5) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which mandates for considering the reply submitted to the charge memo with due application of mind and not to appoint the I.O. mechanically. The I.O. proceeded further and finally submitted report on 11.06.2014. Applicant further states that on perusal of the said report, the I.O. did not find any evidence against the applicant, however, I.O. held Article–I as partially proved. The report would show that the same is regarding lending of money to office staff and making FDR for seeking loan. As far as loan is concerned, it was explained that no such money was ever given to office staff as loan. In fact, the applicant had helped the peon through relatives and friends as he was suffering from financial distress. As far as FDR is concerned, it was explained that the same was done by the bank before sanctioning loan and the information regarding loan was duly given to the Competent Authority.

4. The applicant prayed for exonerating him from partially proved Article – I also. In the said reply to charge memo, the applicant had explained that he had never given loan to anyone and in that regard, an affidavit dated 16.09.2014 was submitted by none other than Sh. Rangaswami whom the loan was allegedly given. As far as financial transaction is concerned, the applicant explained tha