P.K. Misra, J.@mdashThe petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 9.3.2000, imposing punishment of reduction in pay scale, which
has been confirmed in the appeal on 2.5.2000.
2. The brief facts are as follows :-
The petitioner who was working under the second respondent had applied for availing Leave Travel Concession in November, 1998 and had
purchased tickets. However, subsequently due to illness of the husband of the petitioner, journey was cancelled. However, the forms were
submitted by the petitioner relating to claim of LTC even though the journey had been cancelled. When a query was raised, the mistake was
realised by the petitioner and the amount drawn was refunded with interest. Subsequently, a memo of charges was issued and in the reply,
petitioner indicated that due to agony and anxiety she has lost her mind and has mechanically filled-up the papers. Subsequently, a show cause
notice was issued as to why the petitioner should not be reduced to the lower post of scientific officer and even though an explanation has been
furnished, the impugned order was passed. The appeal filed having been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that no formal enquiry was conducted and if an enquiry would have been
conducted, the petitioner would have adduced evidence to show that the claim for LTC has been made in a state of agony and anxiety. It has been
further indicated that the punishment imposed appears to be grossly disproportionate and at any rate without considering the relevant factors and
particularly the fact that prior to the misdemeanor there had been no delinquency on the part of the petitioner has been lost sight of by the
disciplinary authority and the order of punishment has been mechanically confirmed by the appellate authority.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the punishment imposed.
5. A perusal of the materials on record would show that no formal enquiry has been held. It is of course true that the basic allegation has been
admitted by the petitioner and the petitioner has furnished explanation stating that it was due to extreme agony and anxiety and due to illness of her
husband at the relevant time. If a formal disciplinary proceeding would have been held, the petitioner would have availed of the opportunity to
justify her explanation.
6. A perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority indicates that such authority has ignored the question of past conduct of the petitioner
as irrelevant. This appears to be unjustified as while considering the question of imposition of penalty it cannot be said that the past conduct has got
no relevance.
7. Since a formal disciplinary enquiry has not been held and order has been passed without considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, I
think it is a fit case where the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority should be quashed and the
matter should be considered afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to adduce materials in support of her stand. The contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate shall also be considered. The matter should be
finalised within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
