Laskhmi Swaminathan, Vice Chairman (J) - (1.) THE applicant has impugned the order issued by the respondents dated 13.1.2000 by which the penalty of reduction by one stage in the same scale for a period of six months without cumulative effect was imposed on him. He has also impugned the order issued by the respondents dated 19.12.2001 by which a show cause notice was issued for enhancement of the penalty and the order dated 26.12.2002 by which he has been removed from service w.e.f. 31.12.2002.
(2.) The O.A. was originally filed by the applicant on 21.1.2001 and later amended O.A. was filed on 11.2.2003. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) was issued a Memo of Chargesheet for major penalty dated 16.12.1996. The statement of articles of charge framed against the applicant reads as follows: (i) He misbehaved and indulged in loose, lewd and suggestive talks with his Secretary, Smt. Kuljit Kaur, on several occasions on one pretext or the other with a view to sexually harass and seduce her. On one occasion he even propositioned her and suggested sexual relations which were spurned by her. (ii) He deliberately created such privy situations by detaining her in office late into the night after closing hours, sometimes as late as 22:30 hrs. at night despite her protestations, under threat of D&AR action for deserting her duty. (iii) He further created such privy situations by calling her to office on Saturday and other Gazetted holidays and detained her in office after sunset despite her protestations, under threat of D&AR action for deserting her duty. (iv) When his advances were spurned by Smt. Kuljit Kaur he initiated D&AR action against her on frivolous ground with an ulterior motive of making her more pliable so that she could give in to him". It was alleged that by the above acts the applicant displayed lack of integrity, gross moral turpitude and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty. He acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant in contravention of Rule 3 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
(3.) THE applicant has denied the above charges and hence, a Departmental inquiry has been held against him, THE Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report dated 1.2.1999 has found the applicant guilty of four charges levelled against him and a copy of the report is stated to have been sent to him by the Railway Board in February, 1999 calling for his comments. THE Disciplinary Authority after a careful consideration of the Inquiry Officer's report and the representation of the applicant and all other factors relevant to the case has held that Charges I, II and III as not proved and Charge IV partially proved in his order dated 13.1.2000, on which he has imposed the penalty of reduction by one stage in the same pay scale for a period of six months without cumulative effect. THE applicant has himself stated that he has not enclosed the copy of the Inquiry Officer's report being very bulky and moreover the report has been elaborately discussed by the Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 13.1.2000. THE applicant has filed an appeal against the Disciplinary Authority's order to the Appellate Authority on 22.2.2000. THE applicant has stated that as the Appellate Authority has failed to decide his appeal after having waited for about ten months, he has filed the present O.A. praying for quashing the impugned order dated 13.1.2000 issued by the Disciplinary Authority with further direction to the respondents to promote him in the next higher administrative grade with all consequential benefits.;