The proceedings of disciplinary action must comply with established procedural rules; failure to do so undermines justice.

ORDER

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-

Heard Shri Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:

8.1 To consider for issuing orders or directions, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned revision order dated 08.06.2015 and office order dated 09.07.2015 relating to penalty.

8.2 To consider for issuing orders or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.06.2015 and office order dated 09.07.2015 and further order to full pay and allowances for suspension period treating duty with all consequential benefits.

8.3 To consider any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.4 To award cost of the Original Application to the applicant.

3. The brief facts as apparent from the Original Application is that the applicant was appointed and posted as Clerk on 10.09.1987 in the office of AG AE-II UP, Allahabad on vacant posts after due selection process. He was promoted as Accountant in January, 1991 and further promoted in January, 1994 on the basis of seniority cum merit. The applicant was posted up to 22.05.2012 in the office of AG AE-II and thereafter, he was posted in AG AE-I.

3.1 The applicant was suspended on 09.06.2010 under Rule 10 (1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and. Appeal) Rules, 1965. The applicant submitted a representation on 10.06.2010 before AG AE-II UP, Allahabad for revocation of suspension order, but the suspension of the applicant was not revoked. Thereafter, the respondent- 3 issued charge-sheet against the applicant on 03.09.2010. On 28.09.2010, the applicant submitted reply against the charge-sheet, denying all the charges levelled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an inquiry Officer and presenting officer vide order dated 08.10.2010. After conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry officer submitted his report on 16.03.2011 by holding therein that the charges levelled against the applicant was proved and a copy of the same was also served to the applicant.

3.2 The applicant submitted reply against the inquiry report on 13.05.2011. However, the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority without considering the reply of the applicant vide order dated 01.07.2011, imposed penalty of reduction of pay scale three stage below for three years without cumulative effect with stoppage of increment in the cadre of Sr. Accountant from 01.07.2011. The applicant was also reinstated in the services.

3.3 Against this order, a departmental appeal was preferred by the applicant on 26.08.2011, challenging the inquiry report as well as penalty order. The appellate Authority vide order dated 26.07.2012 allowed the appeal and quashed the penalty order dated 01.07.2011 being not passed by proper Disciplinary Authority as the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority under Rule 12 was appointed by the then AG AE-II. However, the Appellate Authority ordered the respondents to complete further inquiry after 06.01.2011 as per Rules by the present Disciplinary Authority without being influenced