Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when an Inquiry Officer abandons neutrality to act as a prosecutor and when a Disciplinary Authority fails to record reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer’s findings, both violating the principles of natural justice.

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has its genesis in a long-drawn litigation arising out of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, who was appointed as a Group ‘D’ employee (Sweeper) in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gurdaspur in the year 1985. In the year 1994, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated against him on the allegation that while serving as sweeper during the period from 28.08.1994 to 23.10.1994, he failed to perform his duties properly and had caused damage to the furniture lying in the class room/intentionally and he has been informed about the lapses on his part by the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gurdaspur Cantt vide his memo No.P/PF/Balwinder Kumar dated 11.10.94. Balwinder Kumar, Group ‘D’ failed to maintain devotion to his duties and committed misconduct under Rule 3(i)(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 . Regarding Article-II, it was alleged that on 23.10.1994, at about 08.00 hours, when the Principal went to his office to check the note books of the students and while working there, Kartar Singh Group ‘D’ of the same Vidalaya entered the office of the Principal and Balwinder Kumar group ‘D’ was standing outside the office and he started abusing in Punjabi and gave “lalkara” Kartar Singh kill him, do not miss the chance” and on this lalkara, he also allegedly entered the office and manhandled the Principal and in order to save himself, Principal Attar Singh rushed outside and after hearing the noise and alarm raised by the Principal, Dharam Singh PGT came at the spot and saved the Principal from both of them. Balwinder Kumar also abused in Punjabi to the Principal and this act of applicant was unbecoming of a Government servant and amounted to gross misbehavior on his part. He was placed under suspension on 25.10.1994. Subsequently, after completion of the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 03.07.1997 dismissing the applicant from service.

2. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the applicant approached the Civil Court of Civil Judge (SD) Gurdaspur by way of a suit No. 640/1997 for declaration, challenging the dismissal order as illegal, null and void and seeking consequential benefits including reinstatement, continuity of service and arrears of pay. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2002, allowed the suit and declared the dismissal order dated 03.07.1997 as illegal and void, while granting liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.

3. The respondents preferred a Civil Appeal No. 52/2002 against the said judgment before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The first appellate court, vide judgment dated 16.07.2008, dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the Civil court. However, the appellate court granted an opportunity to the respondents to conclude a fresh inquiry within a stipulated period of six months, failing which the applicant was held entitled to all consequential service benefits.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondents initiated steps to conduct a fresh inquiry. However, the inquiry could not be completed within the stipulated time. An application seeking extension of time was filed before the Civil Court, which came to be dismissed on 16.02.2009. Meanwhile, the applicant initiated execution proceedings as well as contempt proceedings for enforcement of the decree.

5. In the int