Madho Ram vs Managing Director, H.R.T.C. and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner was served with a notice dated 20th September, 2005 under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. He filed reply to the same. However, vide order dated 27th October, 2005, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 72,000/- in 36 equal installments.

Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the disciplinary authority after receiving the reply, has not taken into consideration the instructions issued under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary authority was required to apply its independent mind whether a regular inquiry is necessitated or not.

Adarsh Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner has been heard and thereafter the decision has been taken to recover a sum of Rs. 72,000/-.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

It is evident from the impugned order dated 27.10.2005 that there is no application of mind as per instructions issued under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was necessary to the disciplinary authority after the receipt of the reply/representation on the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour communicated to the delinquent, to apply its mind to all the facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and from an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. Since the order dated 27.10.2005 is in negation of the instructions issued under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, in view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A, dated 27th October, 2005 is quashed and set aside. No costs.