A disciplinary inquiry must adhere to procedural fairness and ensure that evidence is duly substantiated; reliance solely on preliminary statements is insufficient and violates principles of natural justice.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri B N Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K K Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“i. To issue suitable order or direction to call for record and set aside impugned orders dated 09.04.2015, and 27.06.2016 Annexur no. A-1 & 2.

ii. To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to reinstate in service to the applicant with all consequential benefits.

iii. To pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as GDSBPM under the control of the respondents, was served with the charge sheet dated 23.12.2013 alleging three charges. The applicant has alleged that amongst the three charges, one charge has not been proved in the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer but ignoring this fact, grave punishment of removal from service has been imposed upon him. The applicant has also alleged that the inquiry was conducted in absolute violation of the extant rules and also the procedure adopted by the subsequent higher authorities like the disciplinary authority and appellate authority to decide the plea of the applicant, was contrary to the statutory provisions. The applicant has contended that his case has been dealt with in an arbitrary manner by the respondents and no opportunity of hearing was ever granted to him to defend his case at any stage. Thus, terming the inquiry and punishment imposed thereupon as vitiated and arbitrary, the applicant has sought the quashing of the impugned order thereby directing the respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the applicant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was working as GDSBPM, Madhauli and was issued a chargesheet dated 23.12.2013 alleging three charges. Among the three charges, one charge has not been proved in the inquiry reported submitted on 12.02.2015. The applicant made representation against the chargesheet denying all the charges and requesting for proper inquiry. The inquiry was itself conducted in violation of rules and in contradiction to the statutory provisions as enshrined in CCS (CCA) Rules because as per relevant rules, no charge was actually proved against the applicant. It was further argued that the charges leveled against the applicant pertains to embezzlement of funds and in his reply to the inquiry report, the applicant stated that the main prosecution witness Shri Naresh Pal Singh working in the police department and he came after two or four month and given installment to Sri Durgesh Kumar to deposit the same. Shri Durgesh Kumar had justified the fact during the enquiry. When Shri Naresh Pal Singh provided the amount thereafter Sri Durgesh Kumar deposited the RD monthly installment. Therefore there is no fault on the part of the applicant in depositing the amount. It is further argued that Shri Naresh Pal Singh himself did not come in the inquiry who is the main prosecution witness in spite of the issuance of notices. It is also argued that Shri Naresh Pal Singh made false complaint due to dirty politics. The facts brought on record by the applicant in his reply were not considered by the respondents and order dated 09.04.2015 for removal of service was passed against the applicant which is not a speaking order as it is ba