- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2008 delivered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Bench at Ranchi) in O.A. No. 207 of 2006 (Annexure-8). Original Application preferred by this petitioner was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the order of removal of this petitioner was confirmed and, therefore, original applicant has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charges leveled against the petitioner has not been proved at all. The finding of the inquiry officer is perverse. Moreover, the disciplinary authority is not the appointing authority of this petitioner and hence he can not pass an order of removal of the petitioner from the services. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : (1979) 4 SCC 289 and it is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the punishment inflicted upon this petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal, hence the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the original application preferred by this petitioner for the misconduct committed by this petitioner. Charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 02.01.2006. Enquiry was conducted. Witnesses were examined and were also cross examined by this petitioner. Thus, adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, inquiry officer has given his report, in which charge leveled against this petitioner has been proved. Copy of the inquiry report was given to this petitioner on 02.05.2006 and again adequate opportunity of being heard was given for imposing punishment and ultimately disciplinary authority passed an order dated 05.06.2006 and this delinquent petitioner was removed from the service. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that thereafter, again opportunity of being heard by appellate authority was given and departmental appeal preferred by this delinquent petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 31st August, 2006. Thus, on the basis of evidence on record, there is no procedural defect in holding the enquiry. The finding of the inquiry officer is that the charges leveled against the delinquent petitioner are proved. This finding has also been accepted by the departmental appellate authority. This Court is not sitting in appeal upon the order passed by the inquiry officer. So far as disciplinary authority is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that it is superior post than that of this petitioner, who is Assistant Loco Pilot (Electrical) whereas disciplinary authority is a Senior Divisional Engineer. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that looking to the nature of misconduct, this delinquent petitioner had come at the place of employment in a drunken condition along with other employees and thereafter one of them had snatched away the booking booklet and all had came together and after misbehaviour also gone together. There was also use of filthy language by an another employee with whom this petitioner had come in drunken condition. Thus, looking to the nature of misconduct, the punishment inflicted upon him is not shockingly disproportionate nor it can be said that it is unreasonably excessive. This aspect of the matter have been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Bench at Ranchi) and hence this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons:;