dofp2024_00111 — Changes in the charge-sheet issued to an employee, if one of the charges is not proved, the Appellate Authority should consider and reduce the punishment or alter the punishment suitably of the Disciplinary Authority instead of agreeing with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without recording reasons for the decision

DoFP

Changes in the charge-sheet issued to an employee, if one of the charges is not proved, the Appellate Authority should consider and reduce the punishment or alter the punishment suitably of the Disciplinary Authority instead of agreeing with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without recording reasons for the decision — This chunk discusses the judgment in the case *Shri M.P. Arya v. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC and others* regarding a dispute over the reduction of an employee's pay du... — Facts: The Applicant herein, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Zone was issued with a charge-sheet containing eight articles of charges. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer held that two charges namely, Charges II and III were proved which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Article of Charge II relates to the misconduct of the Applicant in not obeying the instruction of the concerned Deputy Commissioner when asked to discuss the issue of delayed early realization of revenue payable by an importer. The third Article of charge relates to the attitude of the Applicant by advising D.C. to go through basic fundamentals of valuation before unconfirming / writing comments on his query. Because of the above charges, he violated the conduct rules. Hence, he was punished by the Disciplinary Authority by imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage without cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority on the appeal of the Applicant referred the case to UPSC which by its communication, dated 15-6-2007 recommended that only Charge II was proved. Revision petition was also upheld the punishment. Hence this OA is filed against the punishment reducing his pay by one stage from ₹ 8,500 to ₹ 8,250 in the time scale of pay of ₹ 7,500-12,000 for a period of one year with effect from 1-3-2005. The Tribunal considered the case, the decision taken by authorities and the punishment imposed to the Applicant. The Tribunal noted that the Appellate Authority accepted that Charges II and III are proved. That authority also accepted the UPSC advice as just which opined that only Charge II is proved. But the Appellate Authority accepting the view of Disciplinary Authority that Charges II and Iii are proved and confirmed the punishment of Disciplinary Authority. That view taken by the Appellate Authority is unreasonable and irrational observes the Tribunal. The Tribunal felt that the Appellate Authority should have modified the punishment of Disciplinary Authority as the Appellate Authority accepted the opinion of UPSC. It is also noted that the view of the UPSC was not supplied to the Applicant by the Appellate Authority for representing, if the Applicant has any objection which is serious flaw. In the case of Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor [ 2011(1) SCC (L&S) 775 ], it was held that UPSC opinion if not supplied to the charged employee, it is violation of Principles of Natural Justice. In the case of Union of India v. R. P. Singh [ AIR 2014 SC 2541 ], agreed with the decision of S.K. Kapoor's case (supra). While not informing the views of UPSC to the Applicant before confirming the punishment by the Appellate Authority, the submission of the Applicant that he wanted to ensure no loss of Government revenue was not dealt with by the authorities. Ignoring the view of UPSC that only Charge IiI was proved, the order of the Appellate Authority passed, suffers from infirmity which cannot be sustained. When the Appellate Authority accepted the view of UPSC that only Charge II is proved which proved charges also had no connection with Charge III, the order of the Appellate Authority should have modified the punishment suitably which was not done. The decision in this case was taken in four days when the regular DC was not present and the Incharge of DC took the decision.

DoFP

Changes in the charge-sheet issued to an employee, if one of the charges is not proved, the Appellate Authority should consider and reduce the punishment or alter the punishment suitably of the Disciplinary Authority instead of agreeing with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without recording reasons for the decision — This chunk discusses the judgment in the case *Shri M.P. Arya v. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC and others* regarding a dispute over the reduction of an employee's pay du... — Facts: The Applicant herein, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Zone was issued with a charge-sheet containing eight articles of charges. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer held that two charges namely, Charges II and III were proved which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Article of Charge II relates to the misconduct of the Applicant in not obeying the instruction of the concerned Deputy Commissioner when asked to discuss the issue of delayed early realization of revenue payable by an importer. The third Article of charge relates to the attitude of the Applicant by advising D.C. to go through basic fundamentals of valuation before unconfirming / writing comments on his query. Because of the above charges, he violated the conduct rules. Hence, he was punished by the Disciplinary Authority by imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage without cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority on the appeal of the Applicant referred the case to UPSC which by its communication, dated 15-6-2007 recommended that only Charge II was proved. Revision petition was also upheld the punishment. Hence this OA is filed against the punishment reducing his pay by one stage from ₹ 8,500 to ₹ 8,250 in the time scale of pay of ₹ 7,500-12,000 for a period of one year with effect from 1-3-2005. The Tribunal considered the case, the decision taken by authorities and the punishment imposed to the Applicant. The Tribunal noted that the Appellate Authority accepted that Charges II and III are proved. That authority also accepted the UPSC advice as just which opined that only Charge II is proved. But the Appellate Authority accepting the view of Disciplinary Authority that Charges II and Iii are proved and confirmed the punishment of Disciplinary Authority. That view taken by the Appellate Authority is unreasonable and irrational observes the Tribunal. The Tribunal felt that the Appellate Authority should have modified the punishment of Disciplinary Authority as the Appellate Authority accepted the opinion of UPSC. It is also noted that the view of the UPSC was not supplied to the Applicant by the Appellate Authority for representing, if the Applicant has any objection which is serious flaw. In the case of Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor [ 2011(1) SCC (L&S) 775 ], it was held that UPSC opinion if not supplied to the charged employee, it is violation of Principles of Natural Justice. In the case of Union of India v. R. P. Singh [ AIR 2014 SC 2541 ], agreed with the decision of S.K. Kapoor's case (supra). While not informing the views of UPSC to the Applicant before confirming the punishment by the Appellate Authority, the submission of the Applicant that he wanted to ensure no loss of Government revenue was not dealt with by the authorities. Ignoring the view of UPSC that only Charge IiI was proved, the order of the Appellate Authority passed, suffers from infirmity which cannot be sustained. When the Appellate Authority accepted the view of UPSC that only Charge II is proved which proved charges also had no connection with Charge III, the order of the Appellate Authority should have modified the punishment suitably which was not done. The decision in this case was taken in four days when the regular DC was not present and the Incharge of DC took the decision.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text