Procedural integrity in disciplinary proceedings upheld, with distinctions maintained between minor and major penalties under CCS (CCA) Rules.

Order By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.03.2012 as well as the Appellate Authority dated 11.07.2013. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“8(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorary quashing the impugned order of punishment dated 26.3.2012 (Annexure A-1) and appellate order dated 11.7.2013 (Annexure A-2).

8(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant withheld amount of increment with all consequential benefits including interest thereon.

8(iii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

8(iv) To award cost of the application.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while working on the post of Fitter Instrument (Highly Skilled) in the Field Gun Factory, now reconstituted as a unit of Advance Weapons & Equipment India Ltd., Kalpi Road, Kanpur– 208009, was served with a Memorandum of Charges dated 02.11.2010 alleging misconduct on 30.10.2010 during lunch hours. The allegations included unauthorized exit from the factory premises without undergoing security check, refusal to respond to queries raised by the Security Section, and breach of gate discipline, amounting to violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The applicant submitted his representation dated 12.11.2010 denying the allegations and requested the Disciplinary Authority to drop the proceedings. However, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 28.11.2010, appointed an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The enquiry was conducted on multiple dates, and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 09.12.2011, holding that Charge No. 1 was not proved, while Charges 2, 3, and 4 were held to be proved.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, after receipt of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note dated 01/02.2012 (Annexure A-8) regarding Charge No. 1. The applicant submitted his reply on 19.02.2012. In the meantime, vide letter dated 07.01.2012, the applicant had also made certain requests concerning the inquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order dated 26.03.2012, imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment (when next due) for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 11.05.2012, which was rejected by order dated 11.07.2013. It is contended that Charge No. 1 was pivotal for establishing the subsequent Charges 2, 3, and 4. Once Charge No. 1 was held as not proved by the Inquiry Officer, the remaining charges, which arose from it, could not be sustained. The defence taken by the applicant in response to the disagreement note pointed out contradictions in the witnesses’ statements regarding whether the alleged incident took place at the level gate or the main gate. In view of these discrepancies, it is prayed that the OA be allowed and the orders dated 26.03.2012 and 11.07.2013 be quashed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, in their counter affidavit, submitted that the applicant was working as a Fitter Instrument and was posted in the Electrical Maintenance Section of the Field Gun Factory, Kanpur. It is mandatory to follow security procedures during entry and exit from both the Main Gate and the Labour Gate. The