Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal) on 20th August, 2002, whereby an Original application filed by the Petitioner challenging the imposition of punishment of dismissal of the Petitioner from service, was dismissed.
(2.) THE Petitioner, while working as Accounts Assistant was served with a charge -sheet for proceedings for imposing the major penalty. The charges against him were two fold. The first charge against the Petitioner is that at the time of getting into service, he has produced a fake B.A. Part II mark sheet with his application for the post of Welfare Inspector. The second charge was that while applying for IREM Appendix -Ill Examination for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989, the Petitioner has shown his qualification as B.A., whereas during the years 1990 and 1991, while applying for the said examination, the Petitioner reflected himself as graduate. However, the Petitioner is neither B.A. nor graduate and, thus, the Petitioner has misrepresented the facts. The Petitioner denied the charges levelled. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who has given his report. As per the said report, charge No. 1 was not proved, whereas charge No. 2 of Petitioner's falsely representing himself to be graduate was proved. The Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy of the Inquiry Report to the Petitioner. But after few days, the Disciplinary Authority recorded his note of disagreement and sent the same to the Petitioner inviting his defence to the finding recorded by him. Shri G. S. Hira, the then Disciplinary Authority recorded the minutes of the personal hearing dated 14th December, 1999 (Annexure A. 14), but, - -vide communication dated 6th January, 2000 (Annexure A. 17) with the Original Application, filed by the Petitioner, Shri Anil Sainani has asked the Petitioner to appear before him for personal hearing on 10th January, 2000, pointing out that personal hearing granted by Shri G.S. Hira was erroneous as he has taken over as a Deputy Financial Advisor, on 18th November, 1999. The Petitioner submitted his reply dated 8th January, 2000 (Annexure A. 18) and did not accept the call of the Disciplinary Authority for personal hearing on 10th January, 2000. After the receipt of such reply, the competent authority has passed an order (Annexure A.l) on 14th January, 2000 imposing the punishment of dismissal with immediate effect. The said order was challenged in appeal and revision, but the same was dismissed on 22nd March, 2000. Aggrieved against the orders passed, the Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which has remained unsuccessful.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is wholly unjustified as personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner by Shri G. S. Hira, who was the earlier Deputy Financial Advisor, but the order of punishment has been passed by Shri Anil Sainani. It is, thus, contended that the order of punishment is patently illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank Head Office Manipal : AIR 1991 S.C. 1507 and C.S.H.A. University v. B.D. Goyal (Civil Appeal No. 938 of 1999 decided on 22nd March, 2001).;