Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring clear and reasoned outcomes, though procedural flaws must show substantial prejudice to negate authority findings.

ORDER

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

Shri M. K. Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N P Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

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

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order 16.9.2009 passed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18, Institutional Area Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, order dated 17.1.2007 passed by Joint Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi /Appellate Authority & Order dated 8.6.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Dehradun / Disciplinary Authority (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to the compilation no. I)

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to issue a direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service and to pay the salary to the applicant month to month whenever its fall due and further to pay the arrears of salary.

(iii) Any other and further relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the proceeding in favour of the applicants.”

3. The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the OA has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by reviewing authority of the respondents, order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the appellate authority of the respondents and order dated 08.06.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondents by way of which the major punishment of removal from service was given to the applicant. The applicant Smt. Sunita Rani was appointed as LDC in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 28.10.1992 and was posted in Kendriya Vidyalaya Rampur from where she was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya Moradabad. On 19.09.2002, the applicant was suspended from service and some charges were leveled against her. Subsequently, the inquiry was initiated and after completion of the inquiry and on the basis of inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 08.06.2006 thereby awarding the punishment of removal from service upon her. The applicant submitted an appeal on 26.07.2006 but the same was also rejected vide order dated 17.01.2007. Thereafter, the applicant approached before this Tribunal vide Original Application No 186 of 2007 and the same was disposed of directing her to prefer a revision before the revisionary authority of the respondents. Subsequently, the applicant preferred a revision petition before the revisionary authority but the same was also rejected vide order dated 16.09.2009. The applicant has contended that she has been awarded the harshest punishment on the basis of false charges and has further contended that the inquiry conducted in this matter was not in accordance with rules and statutory provisions. Allegations have also been leveled that several prescribed rules and procedure have been violated by the respondents during the course of inquiry and thus claiming herself to be innocent, by way of the instant OA, the applicant seeks quashing of the impugned orders dated 16.09.2009, 17.01.2007 and 08.06.2006 thereby directing the respondents to reinstate her in service along with all consequential benefits.

Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that serious offences were leveled against the applicant that she had misused the letter head of the Princ