Non-compliance with Rule 14(18) CCS (CCA) Rules vitiates inquiry for failing to question charged officer on incriminating evidence, causing prejudice.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial) Shri S K Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M P Mishra, 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 directions / orders/ writs in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 23.10.2008, 20.09.2004 and 28.10.2003 passed by respondent no. 3, 4 & 5 (Annex. A-1, A-2 & A-3) respectively, especially in view of the order dated 07.04.2015 passed in the criminal appeal, honorably acquitting the applicant in the same charges.

(ii) To consider for issuing orders or directions / writ, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately reinstate the applicant as if the penalty orders have not been passed, with all pay and allowances, increments and other consequential benefits to the applicant. (Annexure A-4)

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

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

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 23.10.2008, 20.09.2004 and 28.10.2003 passed by the respondent no 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Vide order dated 28.10.2003, the respondent no 5 / disciplinary authority has imposed penalty of removal from service upon the applicant. Vide order dated 20.09.2004, the respondent no 4 / appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the applicant preferred against the order dated 28.10.2003. Vide order dated 23.10.2008, the respondent no 3 / revision authority has dismissed the revision application of the applicant. Through this OA, the applicant has contended that the aforesaid orders have been passed by the respondents’ authorities in complete violation of the extant rules and provisions as stated in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant has also alleged that the respondents have imposed the harsh punishment of removal from service upon the applicant solely on the basis that the applicant was under judicial trial in a case in which the applicant has already been honourably acquitted and exonerated of all the charges leveled against him. Facts of the case as stated in the OA are that the applicant is a permanent employee of the respondents’ department and has always performed his duties to the best satisfaction of the competent authority and without any complaint whatsoever. It has been alleged in the OA by the applicant that due to some misunderstanding and conspiracy, he was abruptly suspended and on 18.04.2001, disciplinary proceedings were contemplated by the respondents. On behalf of the respondent no 5, the SDI lodged FIR on 20.04.2001, against the applicant for irregular payments of money order and negligence of duty under Section 409 and 420 of IPC. The applicant further alleges that he was sent to jail in the month of June 2001 under the influence of the respondents and was released in July 2001 but he was not reinstated in service. Respondents served charge sheet through memo dated 12.09.2001 upon the applicant. The applicant denied charges but proceedings were held against him in violation of principles of natural justice and without following the procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 that too in ex-parte manner without any prosecution evidence against the applicant and further the inquiry report was submitted on 16.09.2003. The OA further narrates that the prosecution documents P-1 to P-27 as exhibits were placed in the proceedings but they w