The court affirmed that the burden of proving actual prejudice from non-supplied documents lies with the petitioner, and mere allegations of procedural irregularity do not invalidate disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Orders dated 20.07.2005 and 20.01.2006 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1846/2004 and R.A. No. 175/2005, respectively, whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner and the subsequent Review Application seeking recall of the Order dated 20.07.2005 were dismissed.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was working as a Storekeeper with the Central Ordnance Depot (COD), Agra, under the respondents’ department. During the course of his service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which culminated in the penalty of dismissal from service. The said dismissal forms the subject matter of the present Writ Petition.

3. On 15.03.1999, the petitioner proceeded on medical leave after submitting a duly completed application seeking sanction of leave. The petitioner, from time to time, sought extension of leave and intimations in this regard were duly sent to the respondents’ department along with the medical certificates issued by doctors of a Government Hospital at Agra.

4. During the period when the petitioner was on leave, a complaint dated 03.07.1999 was lodged by a retired employee of the respondents’ department, namely Subedar Major Shri V.P. Singh, alleging that the petitioner, his younger brother, and another employee had induced him to invest money in M/s. Alakhananda Growth Funds Ltd. through M/s. Dixit Financial Consultancy. Similar allegations were reiterated in a joint representation dated 05.07.1999 submitted by certain employees of the respondents’ department.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaints, the respondents’ authorities issued a Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.1999, bearing No. 22659/9-SD/Estt.-Coord., proposing disciplinary action against the petitioner under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for allegedly canvassing and promoting the investment schemes of M/s Alakhananda Growth Fund Ltd.

6. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 12.10.1999, categorically denying the allegations and stating that he had no role in canvassing or promoting the business of the said financial company or M/s Dixit Financial Consultancy.

7. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 07.08.2000 was served upon the petitioner vide Office Order dated 19.08.2000, alleging that he had indulged in canvassing employees and retired personnel for investment in the said company for profit and that he had remained absent from duty on the pretext of illness.

8. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner sought supply of relevant documents and also requested a change of venue of the Inquiry, by way of representations dated 06.09.2000 and 27.09.2000, expressing apprehension of threat from the vested interests.

9. Vide Office Order dated 23.11.2000, the Disciplinary Authority agreed to supply some documents, denied access to others, and rejected the request for change of the venue.

10. In the absence of complete documents, the petitioner submitted his statement of defence on 22.12.2000, denying the allegations. Apprehending bias, he further sought appointment of an ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority, however, the said request was declined.

11. During the Inquiry, the petitioner raised objections regarding the conduc