- (1.) Akhilesh Chandra Porwal Alias A.C. Porwal, appellant is before this Court assailing the validity of the judgement and order dated 04.03.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4181 of 2014 (Akhilesh Chandra Porwal @ A.C. Porwal Vs. Union of India and others) wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question by observing that punishment awarded is not at all disproportionate so as to entail any interference by this Court in exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Brief facts of the present petition as clearly reflected from the record and from the judgment of learned Single Judge are that the petitioner-appellant applied for and was selected on the post of Junior Engineer in the Cantonment Board, Kanpur after facing due selection process. He was appointed as Junior Engineer vide order dated 20.01.1994 issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Kanpur. As per appointment letter, his services would be governed under Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937 (in short, Rules 1937) as amended upto date and the appointing authority of the petitioner-appellant would be Cantt. Executive Officer. The post of Cantt. Executive Officer has now been given the nomenclature of Chief Executive Officer. Rule 2 (aa) of Rules 1937 defines "appointing authority" in relation to a Cantonment Fund Servant and Rule 11 deals with penalties. Rule 2 (aa) and Rule 11 of Rules 1937 are reproduced hereinafter:- "Rule 2 (aa) "appointing authority" in relation to a Cantonment Fund Servant means (i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the servant for the time being holds, or (ii) the authority which appointed the servant to such post as the case may be, whichever authority is the higher authority. 11 (1). The following penalties may for good and for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be imposed by the Executive Officer on a servant, namely:- Minor Penalties - (i) Censure; (ii) Fine (2) The following penalties may, for good and for sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed by the appointing authority on a servant, namely:- Minor Penalties - (i) Withholding of his promotion; (ii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Board by negligence or breach of order; Major penalties (iv) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the tenure increments of his pay; (v) reduction to a lower time-scale or pay, grade post or service, which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the servant to the time scale or pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; (vi) compulsory retirement; (vii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Board in whose service he was at the time of such removal or any other Board; (viii) dismissal from service, which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment under the Board under whom he was employed at the time of dismissal or any other board."
(3.) As per Rule 11 (2) of Rules 1937, major penalty of compulsory retirement can be imposed on an employee only by the appointing authority and in the instant case, the appointing authority of the petitioner-appellant would be Cantt. Executive Officer, now given the nomenclature as Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board and in view of Rule 2 (aa) of Rules 1937, since Cantt. Executive Officer appointed the petitioner-appellant on the post of Junior Engineer, as of now the Chief Executive Officer would be the appointing authority.;