The Tribunal held that an inquiry conducted without violating natural justice, providing adequate opportunities for defense, and adhering to procedural rules is valid, affirming the dismissal of the applicant.

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

1. Being aggrieved by the Order No.221/3/2000-AVD.IIB dated 12.03.2014 by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 seeking following relief:-

“a) (A) Be Pleased to admit and allow this present application

(B) Be Pleased to Quash and Set aside the Impugned decision of dismissal, being Order No. 221/3/2000- AVD.II(B) dated 12/03/2014 (Annex. 1), alongwith the inquiry proceedings (Annexure-2) and the UPSC Advice(Annexure-3) based on which this order has come to be passed.

(C) Be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the present applicant which arise on account of the quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders.

(D) Be pleased to pass any further order or directions as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.

2. This is the second stage of litigation whereby the applicant has filed this application against the order of Disciplinary Authority (DA).

3. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:-

3.1 The applicant was promoted from the rank of Inspector to DSP on 25.04.1994 and was posted from Ahmedabad to New Delhi. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a representation dated 05.05.1994 requesting the respondents to change his place of posting from New Delhi to Bhuj which was initially rejected by the competent authority. Thereafter the applicant was transferred to Bhuj on 17.06.1994 and he continued his service at Bhuj upto 31.01.1995. Subsequently, he applied for Earned Leave from 23.01.1995 to 17.02.1995 with permission to prefix 21.01.1995 and 22.01.1995 being holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. The application was recommended for sanction by Controlling Authority viz. SP/CBI/SPE, Jodhpur. He had proceeded on leave from 20.01.1995 with the knowledge of the Controlling Authority. Meanwhile, a fax message was received from the Joint Director (Admin) CBI, New Delhi on 27.01.1995 wherein it was directed that he was transferred from the present posting of Bhuj to New Delhi.

3.2 It was stated that the applicant was to proceed to New Delhi immediately because his presence was required urgently for an “emergent investigation”, as, it was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stated subsequently by the respondent. Thereafter, the DIG, CBI/SPE Jaipur who was competent authority to sanction leave, rejected the leave application on 30.01.1995 (Annexure-5). In pursuance to the transfer order, the applicant was relieved on 30.01.1995 from the post of DSP at Bhuj and he was further informed that his application for leave had not been sanctioned and was directed to join his posting at New Delhi.

3.3 Thereafter SP, CBI Jodhpur vide letter dated 21.02.1995 (Annexure-7) informed the present applicant that his transfer order was still in effect and he was required to report to New Delhi. It was also informed that, if the applicant failed to do so then serious view would be taken of the matter and disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against him.

3.4 In response to the above direction, the applicant submitted a representation dated 10.03.1995 requesting the competent authority to cancel his transfer order as the same would severely hinder his domestic and personal life. He also submitted to the competent authority that his wife was working in the Gujarat Electricity Board, a State Government PSU and as such his wife have to shift to New Delhi because his wife w