J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty imposed as per Exhibit P1 after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Exhibit P6 is the copy of the enquiry report. The challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exhibits P1 and P6.

2. Various grounds have been raised in the Writ Petition with regard to the sufficiency of evidence, the findings in the enquiry report and the conclusion made by the Disciplinary Authority in Exhibit P1. It is contended that, at any rate, the charges are not sustainable and the punishment imposed is not justifiable.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit and the learned Standing Counsel in his arguments that the petitioner has got an effective remedy of appeal under Rule 23(2) of the Central Civil Service(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules. It is averred in the counter affidavit that the appeal is an effective statutory W.P.(C)No.2024/10 -2-

remedy provided under the Rules and the Writ Petition therefore is not maintainable. In paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the Director General of C-DAC