Disciplinary actions must adhere to statutory procedures for fair hearing; non-compliance vitiates the proceedings.

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The applicant before this Tribunal is challenging the punishment order dated 04.07.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of “removal from service” and the order of Appellate Authority dated 23.01.2014 vide which the appeal was rejected and further revisionary order dated 09.11.2017 issued by Revisionary Authority.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the allegation of unauthorized absent from duty from 21.03.2012 onwards without prior approval of leave / valid permission, memorandum dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure-A/6) was issued to the applicant. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, Inquiry was conducted and the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of removal from service, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority. Therefore, the present Original Application has been filed by the applicant on the ground that impugned orders are absolutely arbitrary, illegal and are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that, under Rule 14 and 18 of the CCS CCA Rules, 1965 , the applicant ought to have been called for general examination. It is stated that the Inquiry Officer examined the applicant on 06.05.2013, only after the Inquiry was closed, with the submission of Prosecution Brief dated 19.04.2013 and Defense Brief dated 24.04.2013. It was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to call the applicant for general examination, as provided under Rule 14(18) of the CCS CCA Rule 1965, before submission of Prosecution Brief dated 19.04.2013 and Defense Brief dated 23.04.2013. The aforesaid provision is mandatory one and since the same was not complied with, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated and impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

2.1. Further, it is contended that the punishment order dated 04.07.2013 is absolutely non-speaking order, wherein nothing has been discussed about the evidence on record. Further, during Inquiry, neither the Inquiry Officer has proved nor the Disciplinary Authority has mentioned that the applicant's absence was unauthorized and in any case, it has not been proved or mentioned anywhere that the absence was willful. It is submitted that, when an employee, for a reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedure laid down under the sub-rules are required to be strictly followed. It is well settled that a judicial review would lie, even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in the statute or passes an order without application of my mind, judicial review would be maintainable.

2.2. Further, it is submitted that the Appellate Authority has failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule-24 read with Rule-27 of CCS CCA Rules, 1965 . On that basis, the applicant has prayed for quashment of the impugned orders with all consequential benefits as per rules.

3. After notice, the official respondents have filed a reply and contested the Original Application. It is submitted that, at every stage the applicant was given reasonable opportunity to defend his case and personal hearing was also granted at the time of appeal. It is submitted that, respondents have complied with the provisions of law and acted strictly in accordance with CCS CCA Rule 1965. Further, looking to the limited scope of judicial review, no ground is available to interfere in the impugned orders.

3.1. It is stated that the applicant is awarded the punishment of “removal from s