Ramesh Chand Thakur vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for imposition of minor penalty, under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules" for brevity sake) on 13.6.2006. The charge levelled against the Petitioner was that he remained on unauthorized leave and relinquished the charge of Project Officer, I.T.D.P. Keylong without waiting for his substitute. Petitioner filed a detailed reply on 6.1.2006. However, vide Annexure A-13 dated 13.6.2006, penalty of ''censure'' has been imposed upon the Petitioner and the period with effect from 17.8.2005 to 25.9.2005 and 2.11.2005 to 5.11.2005 has been treated as ''dies non''. The mandatory deductions from the salary of the Petitioner towards G.P.F., G.I.S. etc. were also not made during this period.

Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma has vehemently argued that imposition of penalty vide Annexure A-13 is not in conformity with law. He has relied upon Government of India''s decision dated 28.10.1985 issued under Rule 16 of the Rules. He then contended that the reply furnished by the Petitioner to the charge-sheet has not been taken into consideration in right perspective by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the penalty in question.

Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the order dated 13.6.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

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

According to the charge-sheet, Petitioner remained absent from duties with effect from 17.8.2005 3 to 25.9.2005 and 2.11.2005 to 5.11.2005 and relinquished the charge of Project Officer, I.T.D.P. Keylong without waiting for his substitute. He has filed a detailed reply on 17.1.2006. The reply filed by the Petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while dealing with the matter. The averments contained in the reply filed by the Petitioner to memorandum have not been taken into consideration at all while imposing the penalty, vide Annexure A-13. Merely stating that the representation has been considered will not meet the requirement of law. The purpose of permitting the employee to make representation is an integral part of the principles of natural justice.

Moreover, as per the instructions brought to the notice of the Court by Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma dated 18.10.1985, on receipt of representation of Government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour communicated to him, the Disciplinary Authority has to apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. In the instant case, this exercise has also not been undertaken by the Disciplinary Authority.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-13 dated 13.6.2006 is quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to the Respondents to proceed with the matter in the manner indicated hereinabove. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.