K L SHARMA S E Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI K.L. Sharma, presently Superintending Engineer (MES) has filed this original application, challenging initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the respondents by letter dated 26.4.1996 under Annexure 3. He has inter alia sought for the following reliefs from the Tribunal:

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are as follows. The applicant had served as G.E., E/M, Chakeri. His Disciplinary Authority (Ministry of Defence) by their letter dated 26.4.1996 issued a show cause notice to him indicating their intention of holding an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for alleged irregularities in purpose while he was serving as G.E., E/M, Chakeri during the period from 1.7.1984 to 29.6.1987. He was served with a show cause notice by the Chief Engineer (AF), Allahabad, in February 1993. The applicant, having been asked to show cause after a gap of 10 years from the date of certain actions being taken, requested for documents to submit his reply." Thereafter he submitted his reply to the show cause notice though documents sought by him were not supplied. Then after a lapse of three years, the Ministry of Defence by letter dated 26.4.1996, initiated a departmental enquiry against the applicant. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report in June 1998. A copy of this report was supplied to the applicant, calling upon him to submit representation, if any, against the said report. The applicant submitted his representation on 12.8.1998. After considering his representation, the Disciplinary Authority passed order on 24.9.1999 imposing penalty of reduction of his pay to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by this order of penalty, the applicant has approached the Tribunal for justice.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Indrajit Ray, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. A.K. Bose, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the records placed before us.