NAVIN CHANDRA PANT S/O SHRI GOWARDHAN PANT Vs. JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA AND THE CHAIRMAN CTSA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MHRD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this O.A., applicant has challenged the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment on applicant and order dated 19.12.2005 whereby the punishment has already been reduced by the appellate authority but, according to the applicant, it is still harsh and instead even if the charge was proved, only some minor penalty could have been given to the applicant.

(2.) It is submitted by the applicant that vide memo dated 11.2.2004 (page 45), 3 charges were levelled against the applicant for misbehaving with the Principal in front of the students and staff members on 2.12.2003, for marking the attendance of all the students of Class XI on 4.11.2003 while all the students were absent and for not signing the notices dated 2.12.2003 and 3.12.2003 sent by the Principal and instead writing a remark on both the notices. In the said charge-sheet, there were 4 prosecution witnesses but out of these 4 also, Shri N.K. Chauhan, PGT (Eco) was subsequently given up. During the inquiry, no statement of any student has been recorded yet the Inquiry Officer gave his report on 16.7.2004 (page 63) whereby Charges 1 and 3 were found to be sustained but charge 2 was held as not sustained by the Inquiry Officer (page 81). Applicant gave his representation wherein he requested for a personal hearing but without affording any personal hearing, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 30.9.2004 imposing on him a penalty of reduction of two increments in the time scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 for a period of two years with cumulative effect. It was made clear that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal. The appellate authority passed an order on 19.12.2005 (page 27 at 29) whereby punishment was reduced as follows:

(3.) RESPONDENTS have opposed this O.A. They have submitted that Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authorities so long they are based on some evidence. The quantum of punishment cannot be interfered by the Tribunal unless it shocks the conscious of the court. Applicant was given full opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry. Applicant did not cross examine any prosecution witness nor he questioned any prosecution documents. In fact, applicant admitted two charges himself during the inquiry. Inquiry report was duly sent to the applicant against which he gave his representation and the authorities have passed reasoned orders, therefore, O.A. calls for no interference and the same may be dismissed.