RAKESH KUMAR ROUSHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISCIPLINARY proceedings were initiated against the applicant while he was working as "Skilled Electronics Control Fitter" at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai, on the charge that he had obtained a civil passport without prior permission from the Competent Authority and thereby committed a grave misconduct. The above charge having been found proved in the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of Compulsory Retirement on the applicant. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The above two orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities as well as the chargesheet are under challenge in this Original Application. The short question that arises for consideration is whether any interference is warranted with the orders impugned in this case.

(2.) APPLICANT concedes that he had procured a passport as alleged in the chargesheet. It is also beyond controversy that applicant had not obtained prior permission from the Competent Authority, viz. his employer. But his contention is that it was nowhere mentioned under any of the Rules or Regulations that prior permission had to be obtained from the Competent Authority before applying for a passport. Still further, he contends that no such rule was quoted in the chargesheet and therefore, the entire proceeding was vitiated. According to the applicant, the Departmental Authorities had committed serious illegality in refusing to point out the specific rule, which interdicted or prohibited an employee from applying for a passport without obtaining prior permission from his employer. Applicant further contends that obtaining a passport without prior permission has not been treated as a misconduct under any of the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and for that short reason, the punishment imposed on him is liable to be quashed.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel on both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.