om:7-cl-2015-feb — A Court or a Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a Disciplinary and Appeal case ( D&A case) but only see that the D & A case is dealt with as per law and enough opportunity was given to the charged employee. In the present case, the Tribunal following the above principle held that this D & A case was dealt with as per rule and no lapses are found in holding the inquiry giving opportunity to the delinquent employee. But the final finding of the enquiry officer was r

GDS Rules

A Court or a Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a Disciplinary and Appeal case ( D&A case) but only see that the D & A case is dealt with as per law and enough opportunity was given to the charged employee. In the present case, the Tribunal following the above principle held that this D & A case was dealt with as per rule and no lapses are found in holding the inquiry giving opportunity to the delinquent employee. But the final finding of the enquiry officer was reported to be erroneous. Hence the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority found that the inquiry proceedings cannot be accepted. Notice was given to the delinquent employee in this case to explain his conduct. Based on that, the Disciplinary Authority held that the charges levelled against the employee is proved which was also upheld by the Appellate Authority. Hence the Tribunal did not interfere with the punishment of dismissal awarded to the charged employee upholding the orders of Disciplinary Authority — The employee was dismissed from service after being charged in a disciplinary case, and the dismissal order is under appeal. The charge-memo contained three charges. The Inquiry Officer held that the... — Facts : The Applicant, a GDS BPM, herein was charge-sheeted by charge memo, dated 23-12-2004. The charge-memo contained three charges. The Inquiry Officer held that the charges Nos. 1 and 3 are partially proved whereas Charge No. 2 was not proved. The charges mainly relate to non-issue of proper receipt on receiving the money deposited and the deposit amount was noted and handed over to the depositor in the counterfoil of the deposit receipt which was changed / shown in some other name by the Applicant. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and charged the Applicant as having committed three charges. The Disciplinary Authority has elaborately given the reasons for not agreeing with the enquiry report and reason for holding the Applicant herein for committing serious irregularities. The Appellate Authority also agree with the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence the Applicant was dismissed from service by order, dated 29-9-2006. Against that dismissal order, this O A is filed for setting aside that order with all consequential benefits. The Applicant disagreed with that finding by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority on the ground that no reasons for disagreement is given by the Disciplinary Authority for charging him for having committed the serious lapses. The Respondent states that no procedural irregularities had been committed in conducting the disciplinary enquiry and awarding the punishment. The Tribunal noted the events which led to the dismissal of the Applicant from service. The Tribunal held that the charges are proved and no procedural irregularities are committed. Hence the Tribunal held that the punishment imposed cannot be interfered with. The Tribunal noted Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules for imposing penalty and the Director-General's instruction vide Letter No. 151/4/77-Disc. II, dated 16.-1-1980 which is reproduced in the judgment. Even though in the case GDS employees rule is to be adhered to decide this case, Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 is desirable to be followed, the said provisions of rule in spirits so that there may be no occasion to challenge that the opportunities under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution were not provided. Number of precedence cases were quoted by the Applicant to set aside the charge-sheet issued to him. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

GDS Rules

A Court or a Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a Disciplinary and Appeal case ( D&A case) but only see that the D & A case is dealt with as per law and enough opportunity was given to the charged employee. In the present case, the Tribunal following the above principle held that this D & A case was dealt with as per rule and no lapses are found in holding the inquiry giving opportunity to the delinquent employee. But the final finding of the enquiry officer was reported to be erroneous. Hence the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority found that the inquiry proceedings cannot be accepted. Notice was given to the delinquent employee in this case to explain his conduct. Based on that, the Disciplinary Authority held that the charges levelled against the employee is proved which was also upheld by the Appellate Authority. Hence the Tribunal did not interfere with the punishment of dismissal awarded to the charged employee upholding the orders of Disciplinary Authority — The employee was dismissed from service after being charged in a disciplinary case, and the dismissal order is under appeal. The charge-memo contained three charges. The Inquiry Officer held that the... — Facts : The Applicant, a GDS BPM, herein was charge-sheeted by charge memo, dated 23-12-2004. The charge-memo contained three charges. The Inquiry Officer held that the charges Nos. 1 and 3 are partially proved whereas Charge No. 2 was not proved. The charges mainly relate to non-issue of proper receipt on receiving the money deposited and the deposit amount was noted and handed over to the depositor in the counterfoil of the deposit receipt which was changed / shown in some other name by the Applicant. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and charged the Applicant as having committed three charges. The Disciplinary Authority has elaborately given the reasons for not agreeing with the enquiry report and reason for holding the Applicant herein for committing serious irregularities. The Appellate Authority also agree with the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence the Applicant was dismissed from service by order, dated 29-9-2006. Against that dismissal order, this O A is filed for setting aside that order with all consequential benefits. The Applicant disagreed with that finding by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority on the ground that no reasons for disagreement is given by the Disciplinary Authority for charging him for having committed the serious lapses. The Respondent states that no procedural irregularities had been committed in conducting the disciplinary enquiry and awarding the punishment. The Tribunal noted the events which led to the dismissal of the Applicant from service. The Tribunal held that the charges are proved and no procedural irregularities are committed. Hence the Tribunal held that the punishment imposed cannot be interfered with. The Tribunal noted Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules for imposing penalty and the Director-General's instruction vide Letter No. 151/4/77-Disc. II, dated 16.-1-1980 which is reproduced in the judgment. Even though in the case GDS employees rule is to be adhered to decide this case, Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 is desirable to be followed, the said provisions of rule in spirits so that there may be no occasion to challenge that the opportunities under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution were not provided. Number of precedence cases were quoted by the Applicant to set aside the charge-sheet issued to him. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text