it2025_00903 — When the very charge-sheet issued is by an authority not competent to issue the same is bad in law and, as a consequence, subsequent proceedings and orders are declared non est in the eyes of law

When the very charge-sheet issued is by an authority not competent to issue the same is bad in law and, as a consequence, subsequent proceedings and orders are declared non est in the eyes of law — This chunk discusses an appeal filed by the Applicant against his dismissal from service, alleging various issues including acting as both DA and ADDA without notice, unjustified enhancement of punis... — Facts: Alleging omission and commission, a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to the Applicant vide Memorandum No. F4-2/2014-15/Disc-I, dated 11-11-2014. The Applicant submitted his written statement of defence to the charge memo on consideration of which, IO and PO were appointed. In consideration of the matter in its entirety, the SPO, Dhenkanal Division, Dhenkanal imposed the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect. The Applicant preferred appeal on 6-6-2015. The Appellate Authority held that since the Applicant was a BCR official, whose appointing authority is Director-Postal Services (DPS), Sambalpur, the SPO, Dhenkanal Division is not the competent authority to impose the punishment on the Applicant and, accordingly, remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for de novo proceedings from the stage of finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. The DPS proceeded with the inquiry and declaring that the charges were proved, imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. Appeal was filed before the PMG whereas the Applicant having been informed that now review lies before the CPMG, he addressed a revision application before the CPMG. The same was disposed of on 17-8-2016 with direction to dispose of the pending petition. The said petition was rejected and, being aggrieved, he has filed the instant OA primarily on the ground that the DA has acted both as DA and ADDA as well; that the enhancement of punishment from removal to dismissal is without notice and thus the action is vitiated; that the decision was based on alleged admission of misconduct and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Rai and others v. Banaras Hindu University and others, [ (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 616 ] and the decision in the case of Biswanath Sethi v. State of Odisha and others [ 2021 (I) ILR CUT 319 ], according to which, law is well settled that for a thing to be done in a particular manner has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. Again, for the same allegation, criminal case was instituted against the Applicant, but the police filed the final report vide a copy of the report at Annexure-A/13. Respondents emphasized the facts that the action of the Applicant lead to loss to the department on account of fraudulent activities as alleged in the charge memo. The Applicant in his statement before the IO admitted all the charges unconditionally. The IO submitted his report and after following the procedure under the rules, the punishment of removal from service was imposed, vide Order, dated 28-4-2015. The Applicant filed the appeal before the Respondent No. 4 who reviewed the punishment and ordered de novo proceeding from the stage of finalization of the proceeding. He functioned as the DA since the Applicant was BCR employee and he imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Applicant filed a petition before Respondent No. 3 who was not the revisionary authority for the case. He was advised to address his revision to the Respondent No. 2 who passed the Order, dated 18-11-2016 rejecting the revision petition of the Applicant, dated 9-11-2015. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Store Limited) etc. v. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangh, etc. [AIR 2000 SC 3129] and Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank) and another v. Rajendra Singh in C.A. No. 6142 of 2013, it has been submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere in the punishment imposed by the authorities.