- (1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 30 January 2014 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), dismissing the Original Application No. 621 of 2012 instituted by him questioning imposition of minor penalty upon him.
(2.) Mr. Patkar, the petitioner who appears in person, has made oral submissions as also submitted a written synopsis, in support of the contentions raised by him in this petition. Mr. Patkar has submitted that the Enquiry Officer had, in fact, exonerated the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer was in fact accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. However, on basis of pressure exerted by the Superior Officer, the Disciplinary Authority furnished the dissent note to the petitioner, almost nine moths after the copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner. Mr. Patkar submits that this constitutes blatant disregard to the procedure prescribed, inasmuch as the dissent note is required to be furnished together with enquiry report to the Charged Officer. Mr. Patkar submitted that there is no ambiguity in Rule 15(2) of the C.C.S. (CCA) Rules and therefore, there was no justification on the part of the respondents to deviate from the prescribed procedure. Relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Babu Verghese and ors. Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and others, 1999 3 SCC 422, Mr. Patkar submitted that it is the basic principle of law long settled is that, if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. Mr. Patkar, in his written submission, has also referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in cases of Union of India Vs/. Ashokkumar Aggarwal in Civil Application No. 9454 of 2013 in C.A. No. 9454 of 2013 and Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 7 SCC 84, Mr. Patkar also contended that the order by which penalty was imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority contains no reasons and therefore, there is violation of principle of natural justice.
(3.) On the other hand, Ms Neeta V. Masurkar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the charges leveled against the petitioner were of serious nature. The petitioner, in his reply to the authorities, had, in fact, admitted that he had signed certain documents/invoices without indicating the date under his signatures or using the official seal. She further submitted that certain vital documents, which were to remain in the custody of the petitioner were found to be missing. As a result, there was not merely breach of procedures in the matter of exports but such breach facilitated or would have facilitated exports, in the manner which was not above board. Ms Masurkar submitted that there was no breach in compliance with the procedures prescribed. The dissent note was duly furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner's explanation was also duly taken into consideration, full opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and there is really no cause to complain about any failure of natural justice. Ms Masurkar submitted that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, she submitted that only a minor penalty has imposed upon the petitioner and the CAT, in a reasoned decision, has upheld the penalty so imposed. For all these reasons, she submitted that this petition may be dismissed.;