- (1.) There was a charge against the petitioner herein that he remained unauthorizedly absent from 07.01.2002 to 14.05.2002, while he was on deputation with the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The charge-sheet was served by the Municipal Corporation and inquiry was held. The charges stood proved. On that basis, orders dated 17.02.2003 were passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, imposing the penalty of withholding of one increment of pay with cumulative effect. At the same time, in so far as period of absence from 07.01.2002 to 14.05.2002 is concerned, it was directed that the same be treated as leave without pay for the purposes of terminal/retiral benefits. The petitioner challenged that order by filing O.A. 134/CG/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, which was decided on 10.01.2007. The contention was that when the petitioner was the permanent employee of the Union Territory, the Municipal Corporation could not have passed any such penalty order. While setting aside the order on this ground, the Tribunal directed the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 3-Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh to pass the appropriate orders on the same inquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority i.e. Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh passed orders dated 11.11.2007, imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. This order was confirmed in appeal as well by the Appellate Authority and the review/revision petition was rejected. The petitioner approached the Tribunal again challenging the aforesaid orders imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. This O.A. is dismissed by the Tribunal vide orders dated 14.09.2011 and questioning the propriety of this order present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred. We find from the impugned order of the Tribunal that contention raised by the petitioner was that when the period from 07.01.2002 to 14.05.2002 was regularized, treating it as on leave of the kind due and paying him salary for this period, this period could not have been treated as unauthorized absence and no penalty order could have been passed. This contention is rejected by the Tribunal, and rightly so. As pointed out above, when the charge-sheet was issued, it was on the allegations that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 07.01.2002 to 14.05.2002. This charge was proved as well. On that basis, punishment order was passed. However, thereafter a question arose as to how this period is to be treated. It is for this reason to safeguard the interest of the petitioner himself so that he does not suffer when his terminal/retiral benefits are to be paid and to regularize this period it was treated as leave of the kind due. This would not mean that the charge of unauthorized absence, which had already been proved against the petitioner, would get washed away.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the aforesaid contention, the petitioner had also argued that the Municipal Commissioner had imposed the punishment on the same charge of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, whereas, the disciplinary authority in the Union Territory, Chandigarh has now imposed harsher punishment of stoppage of two increments. We do not find from the order of the Tribunal that any such argument was raised as it is neither commented nor dealt with. Even otherwise, once the order of the Municipal Commissioner was set aside, it was open to the disciplinary authority to pass any appropriate orders. At the same time, going by the aforesaid consideration, we permit the petitioner to make a representation to the disciplinary authority to take lenient view keeping in view the orders which were passed by the Municipal Commissioner earlier. However, we make it clear that the matter would be entirely within the discretion of the Appellate Authority and in case the representation of the petitioner is rejected, it will not provide him any fresh cause of action to challenge that order. The representation, if any, shall be made within three days and the same shall be decided within one month thereafter. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.;