Dr. Aminu Deen @APPELLANT@Hash Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Vinit Kumar Mathur

The present writ petition has been preferred to assail the validity of the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.189/2010 (Dr. Aminu Deen Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr.) whereby the

original application of the petitioner-applicant has been dismissed.

For appreciation of the controversy in this writ petition briefly the facts in the case are that the petitioner-applicant was working as Principal

Scientist under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). In the year 2006, the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board invited

applications for filling up the post of Director, National Research Centre of Camel (NRCC) at Bikaner and the respondent No.2 Dr. K.M.L. Pathak

was selected for the aforesaid post. The selection of respondent No.2 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an original application being O.A.

No.105/2007 in Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur which was disposed of by the Tribunal, directing the governing body of the

Indian Council of Agricultural Research to examine the matter. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research considered the matter and found the

appointment of respondent No.2 Dr. K.M.L. Pathak in accordance with the rules and upheld the same. Therefore, the petitioner Dr. Aminu Deen

pleaded that the initiation of disciplinary inquiry against him is nothing but an act of vengeance to settle the score against the petitioner by respondent

No.2.

It is the case of the petitioner that certain trees in the campus of the NRCC, Bikaner were being cut and the petitioner feeling that the same was

not correct, raised objection and an altercation took place on 26.08.2008, resulting into the issuance of a charge-sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner

filed a complaint against the private respondent No.2 and two other officials of the National Research Centre of Camel, Bikaner namely Shri Satnam

Singh and Shri Mahender Kumar Rao and on the basis of the same an FIR was registered but the proceedings against the respondent No.2 were

dropped by the police as no challan was filed in the criminal Court against the respondent No.2 whereas the proceedings against other two officials

are said to have been pending before the competent criminal Court at Bikaner.Â

For the incident which took place on 26.08.2008, a chargesheet dated 27.11.2008 was issued to the petitioner in the following terms:

“STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST AMINU DEEN, PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST, NATIONAL RESEARCH

CENTRE OF CAMEL, BIKANER (RAJASTHAN).

ARTICLE OF CHARGE

While functioning as Principal Scientist in National Research Centre on Camel, Bikaner, Dr. Aminu Deen abused and manhandled Shri Satnam Singh,

T-3 and Shri Mahender Kumar Rao, T-5 in the office premises of NRCC, Bikaner at about 4.45 PM on 26.08.2008. When Dr. K.M.L. Pathak,

Director, N.R.C.C., Bikaner intervened in the matter, Dr. Aminu Deen misbehaved with the Director also.

By this above act, Dr. Aminu Deen, Principal Scientist has exhibited lack of devotion to duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of Council’s

employee and thereby, violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to the Council’s employees.â€​

Against the memorandum of article of charge dated 27.11.2008, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply. The disciplinary authority having not

convinced with the reply, ordered for a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. The inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report dated 16.10.2009

was submitted but the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the same issued a notice of disagreement dated 18.02.2010 to the petitioner. The

petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 06.03.2010 to the note of disagreement issued to him. The disciplinary authority after having taken into

consideration the contentions raised in the reply imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement to the petitioner vide order dated 22.06.2010.

The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2008 as well as penalty order dated 22.06.2010 before the learned Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur by way of filing an Original Application No.189/2010.Â

To this original application a detailed reply was filed by the respondent Indian Council of Agricultural Research i.e. respondent No.1 as well asÂ

Dr. K.M.L. Pathak, the respondent No.2 separately. Besides this a rejoinder, additional reply and additional affidavit were also filed before the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur by the rival parties.

The learned Tribunal after the exchange of pleadings between the parties heard learned counsel for the parties and dismissed the aforesaid original

application vide order impugned dated 24.05.2012, upholding the decision of the disciplinary authority. It is in these circumstances the

petitioner/original applicant has assailed the validity of the order dated 24.05.2012 as well as the order of the disciplinary authority dated 22.06.2010 by

way of the present writ petition. The notices were issued by this Court and the respondents have filed the counter affidavit before this Court.

This Court vide order dated 24.07.2017, summoned the original record of the case from the official respondents and in compliance thereof the

record of the case was placed before us and the same was perused by us.

The counsel for the petitioner and respondents have also submitted written arguments beside their oral submissions before us.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

While reiterating the submissions mentioned before the learned Tribunal, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the preliminary inquiry report

was relied upon by the respondents for arriving at a conclusion for the departmental inquiry without supplying the copy of the same to the applicant.Â

He further submitted that no cross examination was permitted to the authors of the preliminary inquiry report. Besides this the representation of the

applicant filed to the note of disagreement by the disciplinary authority was also not considered while passing the order dated 22.06.2010. Learned

counsel has submitted that since the applicant being the whistle blower was trying to protect the illegal felling of the trees in the campus of NRCC,

Bikaner. He is being proceeded against by the disciplinary authority and the whole exercise is nothing but a colourable exercise of the power. He

further submits that the respondent No.2 being inimical to the petitioner for the reason that he challenged his appointment as the Director of NRCC,

Bikaner, he has been roped-in in a totally false and fabricated case. The entire disciplinary inquiry is with a preconceived mind to punish the

petitioner. The same has been done without following due process of law. He further submits that for the incident which took place on

26.08.2008, a competent criminal Court is already seized of the matter on the complaint/FIR filed by the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question

of proceeding against the petitioner by way of disciplinary proceeding for the alleged incident dated 26.08.2008. In the FIR filed by the respondent

before the police authority, a negative final report has already been filed which shows that the incident which has been projected by the respondents is

not correct. He submits that there are material contradictions in the statements recorded during the inquiry proceedings. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that the relevant documents provided by the Department on the application filed under the Right To Information Act show

and suggest that neither the charge-sheet was issued by the disciplinary authority nor the note of disagreement was signed by the disciplinary authority

and the order of punishment has also not been signed after due application of mind by the competent authority i.e. the President, Indian Council of

Agricultural Research.

In order to take note of the written arguments filed by the petitioner, following issues have been raised:-

“Issue No.1: Charge-sheet of ICAR is non est since not issued by DA.

Issue No.2: ICAR had no material to write a chargesheet against the applicant, the incidence mentioned is a non-existing incidence just to fill up the

pages.

Issue No.3: The institution of disciplinary proceedings of ICAR is not legal for 2 reasons. i. The Note is false, ii. DA has simply appended signature on

the note prepared by other officials.

Issue No.4: The reply of the applicant to the chargesheet was not examined by DA.Â

Issue No.5: Inquiry officer had no legal charge-sheet to inquire upon.

Issue No.6: Letter dated 30.04.2009 to inquiry officer

is proof of no existence of incidence mentioned in the charge-sheet, hence there was no need to conduct any inquiry.

Issue No.7: Inquiry officer did not call 2 defence witnesses in inquiry.

Issue No.8: Inquiry officer called members of preliminary inquiry committee but did not allow their examination as prosecution witness.Â

Issue No.9: DA did not examine inquiry report.Â

Issue No.10: DA did not examine brief on disagreement on inquiry report.

Issue No.11: The note awarding penalty is perverse in law.

Issue No.12: The order of Tribunal under appeal is void ab initio.

Issue No.13: The application on behalf of the respondent is falsehood.â€​

To buttress the contention raised above, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V.

Gopinath (Civil Appeal No.7761/2013) decided on 05.09.2013 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“Ultimately, it appears that the charge memo was not put up for approval by the Finance Minister. Therefore, it would not be possible to accept the

submission of Ms. Indira Jaising that the approval granted by the Finance Minister for initiation of departmental proceedings would also amount to

approval of the charge memo.

Ms. Indira Jaising also submitted that the purpose behind Article 311, Rule 14 and also the Office Order of 2005 is to ensure that only an authority that

is not subordinate to the appointing authority takes disciplinary action and that rules of natural justice are complied with. According to the learned

Addl. Solicitor General, the respondent is not claiming that rules of natural justice have been violated as the charge memo was not approved by the

disciplinary authority. Therefore, according to the Addl. Solicitor General, the CAT as well as the High Court erred in quashing the charge sheet as no

prejudice has been caused to the respondent. In our opinion, the submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General is not factually correct. The primary

submission of the respondent was that the charge sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is without authority of law and, therefore,

non est in the eye of law. This plea of the respondent has been accepted by the CAT as also by the High Court. The action has been taken against the

respondent in Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules which enjoins the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of

imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges. The term “cause to be drawn up†does not mean that the

definite and distinct articles of charges once drawn up do not have to be approved by the disciplinary authority. The term “cause to be drawn upâ€

merely refers to a delegation by the disciplinary authority to a subordinate authority to perform the task of drawing up substance of proposed

“definite and distinct articles of charge sheetâ€. These proposed articles of charge would only be finalized upon approval by the disciplinary

authority.â€​

While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath (supra) learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings i.e. charge-sheet, note of disagreement and the order of the disciplinary authority are required

to be passed by the disciplinary authority itself and none else. Therefore, in the present case, the entire proceedings are undertaken dehors the rules as

the disciplinary authority i.e. President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (Hon’ble Union Minister) has not passed the same.Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment passed in State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh; Civil Appeal

No.4531/2007 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

(10) In regard to the question whether an enquiryofficer can indicate the proposed punishment in his report, this Court, in a series of decisions has

pointed out that it is for the punishing/disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and enquiry officer has no role in awarding punishment.

It is useful to refer to the decision of this Court in A.N.D’Silva Vs. Union of India, (1962) Supp 1 SCR 968 wherein it was held:

In the communication addressed by the Enquiry Officer the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the appellant if he was found guilty of the

charges could not properly be set out. The question of imposing punishment can only arise after enquiry is made and the report of the Enquiry Officer

is received. It is for the punishing authority to propose the punishment and not for the enquiring authority.

11) From the above decisions, the following principleswould emerge:

(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and caremust be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.

(ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidentswhich is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer,

then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the

enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer.

(iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department shouldtake steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him

to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked

to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.

(iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, beforeproceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the

enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any.

He further relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in L.I.C. of India & Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen; Civil Appeal

No.893/2007. The relevant para of the same is as under:-

“31.Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary

evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and

marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a

court.â€​

He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors; Civil Appeal

No.8267/2004. The relevant para of the judgment is as under:-

“It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there

should be some evidences to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial,

i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the

documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record.

While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of

proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations

with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India

Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ananta Saha & Ors; Civil Appeal No.2958/2011. The relevant para of the same is as under:

“This Court has repeatedly held that an order of dismissal from service passed against a delinquent employee after holding him guilty of misconduct

may be an administrative order, nevertheless proceedings held against such a public servant under the Statutory Rules to determine whether he is

guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. The authority has to give some reason, which may be very

brief, for initiation of the inquiry and conclusion thereof. It has to pass a speaking order and cannot be an ipse dixit either of the inquiry officer or the

authority.â€​

Refuting the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently supported the order

passed by learned Tribunal as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the action of the respondent is perfectly just and proper in accordance with the rules and

the same has been passed after due application of mind by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, has rightly been upheld by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. He submits that learned counsel for the petitioner has not submitted anything which is worth

consideration by this Court and, therefore, the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by learned Tribunal should not be interfered with.

Detailed written submissions have also been filed by learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that after filing of the Original Application No.189/2010 decided on 24.05.2012, one more

Original Application being O.A. No.81/2013 was filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur wherein applicant

prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2008 of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the entire proceedings are based on this

charge-sheet. The said original application was dismissed on 03.01.2014. The petitioner challenged the order dated 03.01.2014 passed in Original

Application No.81/2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing a writ petition being Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.32/2015 under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2015 in the following terms:-

“Through the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 03.01.2014.Â

We decline to entertain this petition, and leave it open to the petitioner to raise a challenge to the impugned order dated 03.01.2014 before the High

Court, if the petitioner so desires, in accordance with law.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that in view of the subsequent order on the same subject having been affirmed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel while meeting the arguments

and producing the original record has impressed upon us by submitting that the preliminary inquiry was only a fact finding inquiry, just to know the

veracity of the incident reported and whether an inquiry further is at all required or not. After the fact finding inquiry a full-fledged inquiry was held

in the matter absolutely in accordance with the rules by issuing a proper charge-sheet, the petitioner was given a complete opportunity to defend his

case and nothing on record shows or suggests that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner during the entire disciplinary proceedings. He

further submits that for the charges framed against the petitioner, the inquiry officer has found the charges partially proved but the disciplinary

authority disagreeing with the same, has issued a reasoned notice of disagreement and after having taken into consideration the reply filed by the

petitioner, the order dated 22.06.2010 has been passed which is a speaking order passed after due application of mind.

Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that judicial review of process is only permissible

and not of the decision. Further where substantial compliance of the procedural rule has been made this decision making process cannot be

faulted. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. P.

Gunasekaran; 2015 (2) SCC 610, Government of India Vs. George Philip; AIR 2007 SC 705 and the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India

& Anr. Vs. B.C. Chaturvedi; 1995 (6) SCC 750.

In Superintendent Government T.B. Sanatorium & Anr. Vs. J. Srinivasan; 1998 (8) SCC 572, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where

there is no rule requiring supply of preliminary enquiry report, there is no mandatory requirement that the same should be given. Apart from this,

prejudice has to be pleaded and established.

Further on the point that a strict rule of evidence will not apply in the disciplinary matters, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of State

of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Ratan Singh; 1977 (2) SCC 491.

Learned counsel for the respondent argued that in the departmental inquiry where the breach of principle of natural justice is complained of then

the delinquent employee must plead and prove the prejudice caused to him. For this he relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Sarva Uttar

Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha; 2010 (3) SCC 556.

Learned learned counsel for the respondent has argued that each and every order and order-sheet is not required to be passed and signed by the

Hon’ble Union Minister. Learned counsel has also relied upon the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and Government of

India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 which specifically lays down the manner in which the business of the Government of India is to be

transacted. For the purpose, he relied upon a constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Sanjeevi Naidu etc.

etc. Vs. State of Madras & Anr.; AIR 1970 SC 1102.

We have considered the submissions made at Bar and have scanned the record as well as the detailed written arguments submitted by the rival

parties.

The issue with respect to the charges leveled against the applicant-petitioner for the incident which took place on 26.08.2008 shows that disturbed

by the felling and cutting of the trees in the National Research Centre of Camel campus, the petitioner had altercations with Shri Satnam Singh and

Shri Mahender Kumar Rao and in the incident of scuffle, manhandle, brushing and exchange of violent words took place.

It is pertinent to note that the incident dated 26.08.2008 has actually taken place is admitted by the petitioner as the petitioner as well as the

respondents have preferred criminal cases which fortifies the fact that some incident to have taken place on 26.08.2008 at the campus of NRCC,

Bikaner. According to the petitioner there was no fault on his part and he was trying to stop an illegal activity and in the process he suffered the

damage to his camera etc. and for this reason the persons alleged are being proceeded in the criminal Court at Bikaner but the fact of the matter is

that the charge against the petitioner is of manhandling or misbehaving or scuffling with the officers of the department. The degrees may be different

but the nomenclature of altercation here and there cannot deny that the incident has not taken place and the petitioner is being proceeded by way of

disciplinary inquiry without any basis is worth rejection and the same is hereby rejected.

With regard to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire action of the Department is at the behest of the respondent No.2

for the no fault of the petitioner, we find that the contention of the petitioner that the charge-sheet of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research is

non est and there is no material to issue a charge-sheet against the petitioner on a nonexisting incident also merits rejection as the material on record is

sufficient to show that the petitioner entered into some heated altercation with Shri Satnam Singh and Shri Mahender Kumar Rao and also has

manhandled or scuffled and in the process has also misbehaved with the respondent No.2 i.e. Director, NRCC, Bikaner. The charges are thus

rightly proved against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.

The learned Tribunal has given a detailed finding on the point that it was unbecoming of Principal Scientist to have conducted himself in such a

fashion. The petitioner was a Principal Scientist and his principal job was the research for which the Government of India has appointed him. The

learned Tribunal has rightly held that even if it was a wrong or illegal activity, the same should have been brought to the notice of the concerned

competent authorities of NRCC, Bikaner who would have taken appropriate action against the erring officials. Therefore, the petitioner was not right

rather authorized to conduct himself in the manner of unbecoming of Government servant. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on

the charge framed and further the culmination of the same into punishment order dated 22.06.2010 is perfectly valid.

We also find that the contention with respect to the proceedings have not been undertaken by the competent authority of the Department i.e.

the President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (Hon’ble Union Minister) is also not correct as the record shows and suggests that the

entire proceedings have been undertaken in accordance with the rules and the same has been approved by the Hon’ble Union Minister who is the

President of Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Therefore, on this count also the submissions made by the petitioner are worth rejection.

We have gone through the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath (supra). In our

view the judgment aforesaid renders no help to the case of the petitioner as we find from the record as well as other documents of the case that the

proceedings have been proved by the competent authority i.e. President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (the Hon’ble Union Minister)

whereas in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath (supra) the proceedings were not even being submitted for approval before the

competent authority i.e. the Hon’ble Finance Minister.

We are also not impressed by the ground that because the appointment of respondent No.2 Dr. K.M.L. Pathak as Director of the institution was

challenged by the respondent before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur and the Indian Council of Agricultural

Research was directed to examine the matter. After the examination, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research has upheld the appointment of

the respondent No.2. The same has not been agitated by the petitioner any further and in our view the same cannot be a ground to bring home the

allegation of malafide against the petitioner. Hence, the ground of malafide on this count is also worth rejection.Â

Since the punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed after the culmination of a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, we find

that the same is also proportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned

Tribunal on the quantum of punishment.

We also find that that in Original Application No.189/2010 the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2008 and the penalty order dated 06.05.2010 were the

subject matter of challenge decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur vide order dated 24.05.2012 by a detailed order

but the petitioner has also filed another original application being O.A. No.81/2013 which was rejected by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal

on 03.01.2014 this order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 03.01.2014 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and the same was also rejected on 06.04.2015. The filing of the original applications on the same subject is impermissible in law being not maintainable

and in totality of the facts in the present case may be termed as the abuse of process of law. Besides this we also find that number of applications

have also been filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur as well as this Court on one pretext or the other

which only indicate the proactive rather overactive attitude of the petitioner.

The order dated 22.06.2010 in our opinion does not suffer from any illegality and perversity. We also note that the question of giving a

reasonable opportunity and prejudice is of the prime concern in a disciplinary proceeding and we find that the procedure in the present case was

followed in accordance with the rules, the opportunity to defend the case was also granted to the petitioner in complete respect and further no

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner from any angle, much less nothing has been pointed out by the petitioner also as to what prejudice has

caused to him by non supply of any document or any other act which vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings. As we have noted in preceding

paras, the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court where the pith and substance lies on the core issue of prejudice unless the same is pleaded and

proved, the same cannot be inferred. The writ petition therefore is bereft of merit on this count also.

We are of the considered view that for a charge-sheet issued on 27.11.2008 inquiry officer has given reasonable opportunity of hearing to defend

the petitioner. After supplying the copy of inquiry report, reasoned notice of disagreement was also given. The disciplinary authority after having

taken into consideration the reply on the notice of disagreement has rightly passed the order dated 22.06.2010 imposing a penalty of compulsory

retirement.

In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. The order passed by

the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 24.05.2012 is hereby upheld.

No order as to costs.