Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17 -09 -2004 (Annexure P7) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, order in appeal dated 31 -01 -2001 (Annexure P9) and order in review dated 08 -09 -2005 (Annexure P11) whereby the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed and maintained by the Appellate and Reviewing Authority.
(2.) A charge -sheet dated 13 -08 -2003 was served upon the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not perform his duty as a member of the Regional Technical Evaluation Committee while evaluating technical/professional qualification of tenderers and that the petitioner has shown favoritism to firms i.e. M/s Freightlines Services Private Limited in obtaining H&T Contractor at ICD Singnallur either in its own name or in the name and style of sister concern i.e. M/s Kumar Transport. In pursuance to the said charge -sheet, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 10 -06 -2004, Annexure P5, found that the charge of carelessness/negligence in recommending technically unqualified tenderers stands proved to a reasonable extent whereas the charge of favouring M/s Freightline Services Private Limited and M/s Kumar Transport is not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the said Enquiry Report, issued a notice dated 22 -06 -2004 and also sent a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner. On the basis of the said notice and after considering the reply filed, punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed. The said order was communicated by the Managing Director on behalf of the Board of Directors. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 31 -01 -2005 Annexure P9 allegedly again by the different members of the Board of Directors. Even the review was dismissed vide order dated 8 -9 -2005 Annexure P11 again by the different members of the Board of Directors.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has raised two -fold arguments to challenge the aforesaid order of punishment. Firstly, the Punishing Authority has not recorded its reasons of disagreement in respect of second charge while issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the order of punishment is result of denial of rights of natural justice. It is further contended that the Disciplinary Authority in terms of Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations 1986 as amended on 22 -12 -2002 was the Managing Director, the Appellate Authority was the Executive Committee and the Reviewing Authority was the Board of Directors whereas it is the Board of Directors, who has passed the order of punishment. The appeal and review has been again considered by the Board of Directors. Therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of his effective right of appeal.;