Disciplinary Authority must consider charged officer's representation against disagreement with inquiry report under CCS(CCA) Rule 15(2A); ignoring it vitiates penalty order.

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-

Heard Shri S.K. Shukla assisted by Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsels for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:-

8.(i) Allow the original application by setting aside the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by respondent-3/Appellate Authority to the extant by which minor penalty of withholding of two increments for two years have been accorded to the applicant and also to quash the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by respondent-4 and further be directed to the respondents to provide benefit of First MACP after completion of 10 years services and also provide benefit of 2^nd MACP after completion of 16 years service and further be directed them to promote the applicant on the post of Deputy Director w.e.f. 31.05.2021 and also provide consequential benefits thereof to the applicant.

(ii) To issue any other suitable and equitable order or direction to the respondents which Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

3. The brief facts, as apparent from the Original Application, are that the applicant initially appointed as District Youth Coordinator, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sanghtan (hereinafter referred as NYKS) vide order dated 30.09.1994. Pursuant thereto, the applicant joined the said post at Headquarters NYKS, New Delhi. Subsequently, he was transferred to State Project Office, NYKS, Lucknow and again transferred to District Badaun as a District Youth Coordinator in 2003 and since then, the applicant is discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the respondents.

3.1 A compliant had been filed against the applicant in 2008 and a preliminary inquiry had also been conducted by the respondents. Subsequently, a memorandum/charge-sheet was issued to the applicant on 31.03.2009, by which he was directed to submit his explanation in respect of charges levelled against him.

3.2 In pursuance thereto, the applicant submitted his detailed reply on 15.04.2009, but neither any final decision has been taken nor any punishment has been awarded against the applicant. Thereafter, the respondent-4 issued a Memorandum dated 29.11.2012 along with charge-sheet, by which three charges were levelled against the applicant and an inquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1965) has been initiated.

3.3 In view thereof, the applicant submitted his reply on 08.01.2013 before respondent-4. However, an Inquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 12.04.2013 by respondent-4. Thereafter, the inquiry Officer conducted his inquiry and recorded the statement of witnesses /cross examination and concluded his inquiry. He submitted his inquiry report on 06.12.2013 before the respondent-4/Disciplinary Authority, wherein it has held by the Inquiry Officer that no charges have been found proved against the applicant.

3.4 Subsequently, the Deputy Director (Vigilance) NYKS, Delhi issued a letter dated 17.02.2015, by which, District Magistrate was directed to submit the report in relation to Kishori Shakti Scheme. In reply, the District Magistrate issued a letter dated 16.07.2015 along with earlier report submitted by Inquiry Committee headed by Chief Development Officer, Budaun with the observation that the matte