Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Orissa PSC
conducted enquiry and submitted his report (Annexure-3) recommending for exonerating the applicant
from all charges and treating the period of suspension as on duty. The Government differed with the
findings of the Inquiring Officer giving brief reasons and issued Annexure-4 notice dated 5.2.2002
calling upon the applicant to make representation as he may wish to make within thirty days from the
date of receipt of the notice. The applicant on receipt of the said notice (Ann.4) gave reply (Ann.5)
challenging the same (notice) on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and the
provision made in Rule 15(10)(i)(a) and 1(6) of the C.C.A. Rules. Further, it is stated that no valid
reason has been assigned in the notice to find the applicant guilty of the charges and as such the said
notice under Anx.4 needs to be quashed. Such notice is also not tenable as the disciplinary authority
had already made up his mind to punish the applicant by dismissing him from service as reflected in
Anx. 4 on the silly grounds that the finding of the Inquiring Officer is not tenable.
4. The applicant has averred that the disciplinary authority (respondent no.1) without considering
his stand taken in his representation finalised the proceeding and awarded punishment of removal from
service and treating the period of suspension as such vide Annxure-4 dated 14.2.2003. This order is
also under challenge mainly on the ground that no second show cause notice was issued giving
opportunity to have his say on the proposed penalty, that the said order is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable
and has been passed in breach of the principle of natural justice.
5. In reply, the respondent no.1 has stated that the facts mentioned in the written statement of
defence (Anx.2) were duly considered and on such consideration the C.D.I. was appointed to conduct
enquiry and submit report on the charges framed against the applicant. The C.D.I. submitted the
Inquiry Report. The respondent no.1 on considering the said report and evidence on record decided
to differ from the said findings of the Inquiring Officer as it was found to be without proper application
of mind and appreciation of the materials placed before him (I.C) and to impose punishment of dismissal
from Govt. Service and treating the period of suspension as such. The said decision was communicated
to the applicant along with reasons for disagreement from the findings of the I.D. (C.D.I.) with the
copy of inquiry report calling upon him to submit his representation if any against the findings and the
decision of the disciplinary authority (Respondent No.1) vide Annexure-A/1 date 4.2.2002 Annx.4 in
the O.A.). In response to the said notice the applicant submitted his representation. The disciplinary
authority after thorough examination of the same found no merit therein and decided to impose the
punishment of ‘Dismissal from Service’ and treated the period of suspension as such. Thereafter the
867