R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) SHRI J.C. Mehta, writ -Petitioner, now Respondent in the present appeal, was appointed as an Executive Engineer in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short the P.G.I.) on 12th January, 1969. He was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer by the Governing Body of the P.G.I. in August, 1972. The conditions of service of Shri J.C. Mehta were governed by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Regulations, 1967, which were framed under Section 32 of the Parliament Act No. 51 of 1966. The Petitioner was placed under suspension and was served with two charge -sheets dated 5th May, 1983 and 6th June, 1983 (Annexures P -l and P -2 to the writ petition). Briefly, it may be mentioned that the substance of the allegations in charge -sheet, Annexure P -l against the Respondent was that while functioning as Superintending Hospital Engineer during the year 1978 -79, in collusion with Sarvshri P.L. Sodhi, Hospital Engineer, Arun Vohra, Technologist Grade -II, and some others, did not care to observe codal formalities as provided in the Manual of Accounts procedure of the P.G.I, and placed supply orders for 2000 Deodar and 500 Kail -wood sleepers with M/s Hindustan Timber Stores, New Delhi, at a total cost of Rs. 3,81,878 -06 P. and subsequently he did not inspect the material, with the result that sub -standard sleepers were accepted by him. He also hurriedly made the payment of 95 per cent of the total cost and also paid illegal overhead charges of Rs. 13,352 -34 P. and Sales tax of Rs. 1,335 -20 P. on the overhead charges. He also made excess payment of Rs. 4408.00. Thereby he had committed misconduct and exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty and had contravened Rule 3(1) (i) and (ii) of the Central Government Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It may be mentioned here that to the employees of the P.G.I. Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the C.C.A. Rules) are applicable for taking disciplinary action against them. In pursuance of the charge -sheet, Annexure P -l, an enquiry was held against the writ Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of CCA Rules, Mr. Ashok Kumar Rastogi, commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, - -vide his detailed report (Annexure Rule 17 with the written statement) found Shri Mehta guilty of the following charges: (a) The charge that Shri Mehta did not follow the codal formalities is proved. (b) That charge that Shri Mehta did not safeguard the interests of the P.G.I, by allowing favourable terms to the firm and arranging payments thereof is proved. (c) The charge that Shri Mehta did not inspect timber is not maintainable as he was not required to do so at any stage, (d) The charge that the timber supplied did not conform to Grade I quality is found utterly baseless.
(2.) A separate enquiry was held into the charges contained in Annexure P -2 in accordance with the C.C.A. Rules by Shri P.R. Das Gupta, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, - -vide his report (Annexure R -l/6) with the written statement) he summarised his findings as follows: Charge (a) Has it been established that Shri Mehta was wilfully absent from duty since 11th November, 1983 ? Finding Yes. (b) Does it amount to contravention of Rule 3(1) (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1964 ? No Since this rule is supposed to cover acts of misconduct not covered by other specific provisions of the Rules. The Governing Body of the F.G.I., which is the appointing and disciplinary authority of Shri Mehta, after taking into consideration both the enquiry reports and the findings recorded therein and other relevant material passed two separate orders on the same date, i.e. 15th November, 1984 (Annexure P -3 and P -3/A), by which punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on Respondent Shri Mehta. An appeal was preferred by Shri Mehta against both the aforesaid orders of compulsory retirement, to the Chairman of the Institute Body of the P.G.I., who is the Union Health Minister. This appeal was, however, rejected, - vide communication to Shri Mehta, -vide Memo, dated 31st March, 1987 (Annexure P -6). Shri Mehta challenged the orders Annexures P -3, P -3/A and P -6 by way of writ petition in this Court.
(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, four points were raised, which have been mentioned by the learned Single Judge and are reproduced below: (1) The Petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing after the Inquiry Officers had submitted their respective reports on the charges. It was only after affording an opportunity on the quantum of punishment that Respondent No. 1 could take its decision awarding punishment in accordance with law. (2) The C.C.A., Rules were made applicable to the employees of the P.G.I, by Regulation 38(2) of the Regulations in 1967. The amendment effected by the Government of India in Rule 15(4) of the CCA Rules as a result of the amendment of Article 311(2) of the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment in the year 1976 does not ipso facto apply to the employees of the P.G.I, as this amendment had not been adopted under Section 32(1) of the Act. (3) At any rate, it was incumbent on Respondent No. 2 to supply copies of the reports of the Inquiry Officers (Annexures R -l/6 and R -l/7) to make available to him an opportunity to address a representation on the reasons advanced by the said authorities for arriving at their findings and also to challenge them. This was the demand of the rules of natural justice before the reports of the Inquiry Officer were adopted, their findings accepted or varied by the disciplinary authority. Since it was not so done, the impugned orders of punishment were discriminatory and violative of the rules of natural justice. (4) The Institute Body as the Appellate Authority did not pass a speaking order, nor did it record as to how, it was satisfied that the penalty had been imposed on the Petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down by the rules, that the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on the record and that the penalty imposed was proper. Further, it was necessary for the Appellate Authority to record reasons why it was rejecting the various contentions raised in his appeal by the Petitioner.;