In departmental minor penalty proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, a formal inquiry is not mandatory unless specifically requested by the delinquent employee, provided the disciplinary authority records findings based on relevant evidence on record.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Challenging the enhanced penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effective by the impugned order, dated 24.05.2016 of the 2nd respondent, the applicant has filed the OA for quashing the said order and for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant as stood before the imposition of impugned penalty with all attendant benefits and pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper and, in the facts, and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The Applicant is employed as a Millwright (Skilled) in the factory of the 3rd Respondent. On 18.11.2014, the Applicant was issued a Show Cause notice seeking clarification in respect of certain alleged acts of misconduct dated 08.08.2014. The Applicant submitted his reply on 27.11.2014 and sought additional time to furnish a detailed explanation. Subsequently, the Applicant was served with a Charge Memorandum dated 25.05.2015 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules in connection with the said incident dated 08.08.2014. The Applicant denied the charges through his written representation dated 29.06.2015. However, without due consideration of the Applicant’s representation, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the 3rd Respondent herein, passed an order dated 20.07.2015 imposing the penalty of “withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect.” It was further directed that the said penalty would take effect subsequent to an earlier penalty imposed vide order dated 30.05.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority (2nd Respondent) on 26.09.2015. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Authority issued a show cause notice dated 28.12.2015 proposing enhancement of the penalty and called for the Applicant’s explanation. The Applicant submitted his reply on 23.01.2016. Nevertheless, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and enhanced the penalty vide order dated 24.05.2016 to “reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect.” Hence, the present Original Application is filed challenging the aforesaid impugned orders.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the issuance of the Charge Memorandum without conducting any preliminary inquiry into the alleged misconduct dated 08.08.2014, despite a specific request made by the Applicant, is contrary to the applicable disciplinary rules and the instructions issued by the Government of India. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority acted arbitrarily and with bias by relying solely on a scrutiny report without conducting a proper inquiry.

4. It is also contended that the General Manager, who acted as the Disciplinary Authority, was present at the time of the alleged incident, thereby rendering him a judge in his own cause, which is impermissible in law and violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are liable to be set aside as unsustainable in law.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the case is one of “no evidence,” and therefore the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been dropped, exonerating the Applicant. The conclusions reached by the Disciplinary Authorit