1. In this application filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act the applicant has challenged the charge sheet dated 28.2.90 issued by the respondent No. 6, the enquiry report dated 27.6.91, the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.9.91 and the appellate order dated 26.2.93 issued by the respondent No. 4. He has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid punishment orders and for payment of the salary withheld as a measure of penalty.
At the relevant time the applicant was working as Sr. Clerk Stenographer (SCS) in the Office of SP, Special Crime Branch (SCB) of CBI, Calcutta. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 5.2.90 in contemplation of a Disciplinary proceeding against him. He was issued with a charge memo dated 28.2.90 containing two articles of charge. The sum and substance of the charges was that he deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the orders of his superior officers. In other words the charge against him was of insubordination.
3. Being aggrieved by this charge sheet issued against him the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. 864/90. In the said O.A. an interim order was passed permitting the respondent authorities to continue with the departmental proceeding but they were restrained from communicating any final order in the said proceeding. Thereafter one Shri T.K. Sanyal, respondent No. 9 was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant alleged that the said Enquiry Officer before starting of the enquiry called him in his chamber and advised him to apologize before the Disciplinary Authority unconditionally, Alleging thus the applicant made a prayer for change of Enquiry Officer as he was alleged to be biased and had a closed mind about the guilt of the applicant. However, this prayer of the applicant was not acceeded to by the Disciplinary Authority and the same was rejected by the order dated 5.9.90 (Annexure 'C'). The applicant thereafter made an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also rejected vide order dated 12.11.90. Thereafter the enquiry proceeding started and the applicant participated in the same. At this stage the applicant also prayed for allowing him to engage a lawyer to present his case before the Enquiry Officer on the ground that he was pitted against a presenting officer, who was a legally trained person. This prayer of the applicant was also rejected. During the course of enquiry the applicant prayed for production of several documents but the Enquiry Officer rejected his prayer on the ground that those documents were not relied upon by the prosecution. The applicant also prayed for production of certain defence witnesses but the Enquiry Officer asked him to produce his defence witness on his own and according to the applicant he did not take any action to produce those witnesses by issuing appropriate official notices to them. The applicant has also alleged that he wanted to recall some witnesses for further cross examination which was also not allowed to him. He also wanted to examine himself in the proceeding but this prayer was also rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Thus the applicant has alleged that in the entire enquiry proceeding he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself and hence there was violation of rules of natural justice.
Ultimately the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 27.6.91 holding that the Charge No. I was proved against the applicant and that the charge No. II was not proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also held that charge No.I was proved whereas the Charge No. II was not proved. He therefore imposed a penalty of withholding his increments for two years without cumulative effect taking a lenient view of the matter. It was also ordered that unauthorised absence of the applicant will not be treated as on duty and the pay received by him during the said period shall be recovered in 20 equal instalments. The suspension period of the applicant was however, treated as on duty and he was held entitled to get full pay and allowances for the entire period of suspension. This order of the Disciplinary Authority was passed on 24.9.91 vide Annexure 'L'. However, in view of the interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 864/90 this order of the Disciplinary Authority was not communicated to the applicant. Subsequently O.A. 964/ 90 was finally disposed of on 18.11.91 as the applicant withdrew the said application with liberty to file a fresh application challenging the final order and also other orders. Thereafter the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.9.91 was communicated to the applicant on 27.3.92 (Annexure 'L' at page 131) by the Dy. Director (Admn.), CBI as in the meantime the original Disciplinary Authority had been transferred. The applicant thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority namely Joint Director (Admn.), CBI, New Delhi raising various points. This appeal was considered by the Joint Director, N.E. Region, CBI wherein he decided to enhance the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly the applicant was asked by an order dated 4.9.92 (Annexure 'O') to show cause against the proposed enhancement of the penalty by which the Appellate Authority decided to enhance the penalty by reduction by one stage in his pay for a period of three years without any cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority, however, decided to set aside the punishment of recovery of pay and allowances during the period the applicant was held to be on unauthorised absence i.e. for the period from 6.6.88 to 14.2.90 as decided by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant filed a representation on 25.9.92 (Annexure 'P') against the proposed enhancement of the punishment. Thereafter on consideration of his representation the final appellate order was passed on 26.2.93 vide Annexure 'Q'. It appears that subsequently by a telegraphic message dated 15.4.93 a typographical mistake in the final appellate order was sought to be corrected by deleting a word inadvertently crept in the appellate order vide Annexure 'R'. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this O.A. challenging the charge sheet, the enquiry report, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
4. The respondents have contested the application by filing a reply in which they have stated that the applicant has violated the lawful and valid orders of his superior authority and hence he was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was given all opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment against the applicant. However, on appeal the Appellate Authority decided to partly enhance the punishment and he was also gave an opportunity to make representation against proposed enhancement of penalty which he did and finally the Appellate Authority passed the appellate order. It is submitted that the enquiry was conducted according to the rules and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged by the applicant. They have therefore prayed for rejection of the applicant.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length.
Both parties have also filed written notes of arguments which we have carefully gone through.
6. During the course of hearing and also in the written notes of arguments the applicant has raised as many as eight contentions and has relied on a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the High Courts in support of his plea.
7. The first and foremost contention of the applicant is that charge No. I is vague and indefinite inasmuch as there is no mention as to which order of the superior authority he had allegedly disobeyed.
According to the applicant, in the absence of specific details of the charge, he was deprived of reasonable opportunity to answer the charge and to defend himself in the enquiry. He has contended that during the course of the entire enquiry proceeding he always tried to know as to which order he violated but he was never told or shown any order which he had allegedly violated. Therefore, according to him, the entire proceeding was bad and is liable to be quashed. Hence the consequential penalty order is also liable to be quashed.
The applicant has relied on several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts in support of this contention, viz. Surath Ch.
Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, Santosh Kr. Ghosh v. W.B. State Electricity Board, 1998(2) CLJ 267 (Para 23), Khem Chand v. UOI, AIR 1958 SC 300, Sewai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995, K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, AIR(SC), Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, Cal. LT 1993(2) HC 27, and Ramanand v. Div. Mechanical Engineer, AIR 1962 Raj. 265.
8. In order to understand the grievance of the applicant it is necessary to quote Charge No. I in full which runs as follows : "That the said Shri Kishalaya Mukherjee while functioning as Senior Clerk Steno in the office of Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Calcutta during the period from 6.6.88 to 8.12.88 committed acts of gross misconduct in as much as he refused to carry out legal and valid order of Superintendent of Police/CBI/SCB/Calcutta to join duties in the office of Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Calcutta and to report back to office of SP/CBI/SCB/Calcutta after obtaining a proper release order from SP/CBI/ACB/Calcutta and till that time, not to file or sign unacceptable attendance in the office of SP/CBI/SCB/ Calcutta and thus committed acts unbecoming of a Govt. Servant.
He has thereby contravened Rule 3(1) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964." According to the applicant there is no mention in this article of charge as to which order he had violated and therefore his allegation that the charge is vague is substantiated. Prima facie it seems that the contention of the applicant is somewhat justified. However, in the statement of imputation in respect of this article of charge the detailed facts have been given. The statement of imputation of misconduct is part and parcel of main charge and has to be read along with the charge. On a reading of this statement of imputation it cannot be said that charge is vague as contended by the applicant. In State of AP v. Sree Rama Rao (supra) relied on by the applicant, it is held that it is not essential that the grounds of misconduct have to be specified in the charge-sheet itself. When the grounds of misconduct have been incorporated in the statement of facts and not in the charge-sheet, it cannot be held that the enquiry is vitiated. It is further held that charge and the statement of facts from part of a single document on the basis of which the proceedings were started and it would, therefore, be hypercritical to proceed on the view that though the delinquent employee was expressly told in the statement of facts which formed part of the charge-sheet about his reprehensible conduct, as the ground of reprehensible conduct was not included in the charge, the enquiry is vitiated only on that ground. In Surath Nath Chakraborty's case, the appellant was accused of circulating false rumours for implicating the Director in a false case for wilful disobedience of orders, grave negligence, fabricating false entries and for taking illegal issue of patrol, and in that context, it was held that detailed particulars of each of the alleged misconduct was required to be given in the charge-sheet. However, in the instant case, this is not the case. Here the statement of imputation of misconduct is elaborate and gave details about the delinquency as will be evident from what is stated hereinbelow.
9. The sum and substance of the imputation of misconduct is that the applicant while working as SCS in the office of SP, SCB was issued with an order dated 15.4.88 directing him to report for duty to the office of SP, ACB, CBI, Calcutta (Anti-Corruption Branch) on 18.4.88 without fail. This order was communicated to the applicant immediately.
However, the applicant did not comply with this order and instead he proceeded on leave from 18.4.88 on the ground of illness of his wife.
He in fact reported to the office of SP, ACB, CBI on 9.5.88 though he was directed to report from 18.4.88 positively. Thus, he complied with the order dated 15.4.88 with much delay by taking the plea of illness of his wife. Thereafter the applicant filed an application on 25.8.88 to the SP, ACB, CBI requesting him to release in order to join his former office of SP, SCB, CBI, Calcutta. At that time the SP, ACB, CBI was on leave and hence his request for his release could not be processed. However, on return from leave the said SP, ACB, CBI requested the SP, SCB, CBI to advise the applicant to work in the office of SP, ACB, CBI until further orders. In the meanwhile the applicant without obtaining any release order from the office of SP, ACB, CBI returned back to his former office of SP, SCB, CBI on 6.6.88.
On that date the SP, SCB, CBI was on leave. It is alleged that the applicant unauthorisedly inserted his name in the Attendance Register in the office of SP, SCB, CBI and marked his attendance from 6.6.88 to 8.6.88. After the SP, SCB, CBI returned to duty he found that the name of the applicant was entered in the Attendance Register unauthorisedly.
He therefore directed that the applicant had to obtain a release order from the office of SP, ACB, CBI before he could join in the office of SP, SCB, CBI. This was conveyed to the applicant on 8.6.88. Even thereafter the applicant tried to mark his attendance in the office of SP, SCB, CBI by filing an application. The applicant was replied with and ordered that he must obtain a release order from his earlier office in order to join in the office of SP, SCB, CBI vide order dated 21.6.88. The applicant did not obey this order also. Instead from 9.6.88 to 8.12.88 the applicant went on filing his attendance in plain papers in the office of SP, SCB, CBI, and hence he violated the orders of his superior authority and acted in an indisciplined manner. Hence the charge.
10. So far as the charge No. II is concerned the applicant has not made any allegation of vagueness. Rather, he relied on this charge to show that the charge No. 1 is vague. However since this charge was not proved as per report of the Enquiry Officer and this finding was also accepted by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority we need not discuss this charge. It is suffice to say that in this charge the applicant was asked by an order dated 6.12.88 to join at the Regional Office of CBI on transfer which the applicant also did not comply with.
11. The main contention of the applicant is that from the aforesaid charge No. I and the statement of imputation he cannot find out as to which order he had violated. According to him during the course of enquiry when he was cross examining the SP, SCB, CBI, he also failed to point out as to which order he had violated. According to the applicant since he did not violate any order, therefore, the charge is baseless and hence he cannot be punished for such alleged violation of a non est order.
12. The applicant has not denied that he was directed to join at the office of SP, ACB, CBI by an order dated 15.4.88. It appears from Annexure 'S' that DIG, CBI, Calcutta region had desired to borrow a Sr.
Clerk Steno temporarily in the office of SP, ACB, CBI, Calcutta to clear the accumulation of work load and the applicant was accordingly directed to report for duty to the office of SP, ACB, CBI, Calcutta on 18.4.88 without fail. It was also directed that the applicant will continue to work in the said Branch office until further orders.
According to the applicant he complied with this order but belatedly.
From a letter written by the applicant on 9.5.88 at Annexure 'S' (page 185) it appears that in compliance with the memo dated 15.4.88 of SP, SCB, CBI, Calcutta he reported to the office of SP, ACB, CBI, Calcutta on 9.5.88 for temporary work. He has also mentioned that he could not attend office on 18.4.88 because of sickness of his wife. By a subsequent letter dated 6.6.88 the applicant has stated as follows: "After my attendance in ACB, Calcutta no pending work for which I was requisitioned, was given to me. In fact all the pending work was in the meantime completed and I was entrusted with only the regular routine work of the office.
After my attendance in ACB, Calcutta, a note was given by the Head Clerk in the concerned file (Distribution of Staff) in favour of my release. Against that note, SP(I) did not comment anything and only spoke to Dy. S.P. (A) and the note sheet of the concerned file was kept blank. At this stage I submitted a prayer for my release on 25.5.88. But till 3.6.88 no action has yet been taken by ACB, Calcutta Branch.
SCB. Calcutta is my headquarters. A ministerial staff cannot be detailed for any work outside his headquarters as for such detailment no remuneration is paid. The ministerial staff in CBI is also not getting any special pay or rent free accommodation, which an executive staff is getting, on the plea that the ministerial staff in CBI do not perform any special type of work.
In view of above position, I am not now in a position to work outside my headquarters. If ACB, Calcutta Branch requires services of a Sr. Clerk Steno, they may sent their pending work (?) here. In the alternative, another SCS may kindly be sent for further spell of work in ACB, Calcutta by turn." Thus it appears that the applicant complied with the order of SP, SCB dated 15.4.88 and joined the new office with delay and in the meantime the pending work for which his service was requisitioned had already been completed. The applicant therefore prayed for his release on 25.5.88 from the office of SP, ACB in order to join his parent office of SP, SCB. But since no action was taken on his application for release, he reported to the office of SP, SCB which according to him, was his headquarters and in the temporary absence of SP, SCB on leave he inserted his name in the attendance register and marked his attendance for three days. The applicant in this letter has also stated that if ACB required services of a Sr. Clerk Steno they may send their pending work to the applicant at his office at SP, SCB or in the alternative another Sr. Clerk Steno may be sent for further spell of work.
13. However, when SP, SCB joined he found that the applicant marked his attendance without obtaining any release order from his earlier office and he therefore ordered that the applicant had to obtain a release order from his earlier office in order to join the office of SP, SCB.The applicant was conveyed this order but inspite of this the applicant continued to give his attendance in the office of SP, SCB by signing on a plain paper.
14. From the above conduct of the applicant it is quite clear that he even though complied with the first order dated 15.4.88 but with delay, subsequently he continued to disobey the orders of the superior authorities by not producing any release order from his earlier office.
The reason for asking for a release order by the SP, SCB from the earlier office of the applicant is not unreasonable one. Admittedly the applicant was detailed temporarily in the office of SP, ACB to minimise the accumulation of work. The applicant joined the said office with delay by taking the plea of his wife's illness and in the meantime the accumulation of work had been set right. Therefore the applicant wanted to join his former office and had even suggested that if his services were required by the office of SP, ACB for any additional work they may send such work at his new office. This conduct of an official cannot be supported by any stretch of leniency. It may be noted that the CBI is a premier police organisation in the country and if such kind of indiscipline and disobedience is allowed to go unpunished there will be total breakdown of discipline.
15. However, the applicant has all along taken the stand that he never disobeyed any order passed by his superior authority. The plea of the applicant is very unique. On the one hand he contends that he obeyed the order dated 15.4.88 but he was not under any obligation to obey the subsequent orders of SP, SCB asking him to obtain a release order from the office of SP, ACB. According to the applicant since he was not released by the office of SP, ACB and the SP, SCB had been insisting for a release order by written communications to him, it naturally follows that he was under the control of SP, ACB so long he was not released from that office. Therefore the subsequent orders passed by the SP, SCB to obtain release order was without any jurisdiction as he was not under the control of SP, SCB and hence there was no obligation on his part to comply with these orders of the SP, SCB. It therefore appears that the applicant is speaking in two voices. On the one hand he is taking the plea that there was no work in the office of SP, ACB where he was temporarily detailed, and so he wanted to go back to his parent office and had been marking his attendance by signing on plain paper although he was repeatedly asked by the SP, SCB to obtain a formal release order. If he was of the view that since he was not released by the SP, ACB, he continued to remain under his (SP, ACB) control, it is not understood what he was doing in the office of SP, SCB on and from 6.6.88. We therefore are unable to accept the contention of the applicant that he did not know what order he has violated and that he was never told the date and reference of the order he had allegedly violated during the course of enquiry or in the charge sheet and the statement of imputation of misconduct. In our opinion the applicant all along knew that he had to obtain a release order from the office of SP, ACB as it appears from his letter dated 6.6.88 that he himself had sent a letter on 25.5.88 to the SP, ACB to issue him such a release order. When such release order was not issued to him he continued to mark his presence in the office of SP, SCB on plain paper although he was repeatedly asked not to do so without obtaining a release order. Such defiance of the applicant of his superior's orders amounts certainly to insubordination and calls for appropriate disciplinary action.
16. In the order of the Disciplinary Authority the period from 6.6.88 to 4.2.90 was treated as unauthorised absence as during the period he though present at the office of SP, SCB he did not do any work but he was paid salary for the said period. The Disciplinary Authority therefore directed for recovery of the salary received during this period in instalments. Admittedly, the applicant did not do his work during this period either in the office of SP, ACB or SP, SCB as stated above. However, the Appellate Authority took a lenient view and held that since he received salary and since he was physically present during the said period, this part of the order of the Disciplinary Authority was incorrect and was, therefore, set aside. The applicant has not challenged this part of the order of the Appellate Authority, rather he expressed his gratefulness to the Appellate Authority for this order.
17. Taking the advantage of the order of the Appellate Authority to treat the applicant as on duty from 6.6.88 onwards the applicant states that if he was treated as on duty in the office of SP, SCB without obtaining any release order from the earlier office of SP, ACB then the charge of disobedience falls apart and he cannot be penalised for the same and it cannot be said that the said charge has been proved. This plea of the applicant is also unsustainable. The Appellate Authority took a lenient view and treated him as on duty from 6.6.88 onwards only on the ground that he received salary for the said period and was also physically present but no doubt during the said period the applicant did not do any work. If he was treated as on duty during the said period i.e. from 6.6.88 onwards then as a natural corollary it follows that he was under the direct control of SP, SCB from that date and therefore the orders passed by the SP, SCB to obtain a formal release order from his erstwhile, office of the SP, ACB cannot be considered as without jurisdiction. Obviously the applicant did not carry out these orders of the SP, SCB and therefore it cannot be said that he was not guilty of insubordination and disobedience of the orders of the superior authority.
18. The applicant has raised another contention that the Enquiry Officer was biased against him in as much as before the starting of enquiry he called him in his chamber and asked him to make a compromise with the higher authorities and therefore he prayed for the change of Enquiry Officer. However, this charge is denied by the respondents.
19. If the Enquiry Officer was biased against him and was pre-determined to punish him as alleged by the applicant, it does not stand to reason as to how the said Enquiry Officer held that charge No.II was not proved against the applicant. Had he been biased the two charges levelled against the applicant ought to have been held to be proved. We therefore find no substance in this contention of the applicant.
20. The applicant has also raised a contention that he was denied reasonable opportunity in defending himself as he was not allowed inspection/production of several documents asked for by him. He has quoted a rule from the Discipline & Appeal Rules to contend that the Enquiry Officer was duty bound to record reason for denying such production. We have seen from Annexure 'D' that the applicant by a letter dated 3.12.90 requested for production of as many as 22 documents which were not relied upon in the charge sheet. Even against Sl. No. 21 he stated that he had a right to call for any other documents which he would think necessary later on during the cross examination or at any time. The applicant has not stated for which purpose he required the documents asked for. Only relevant documents are necessary to be produced during the enquiry even though they were not relied upon in the charge memo. Since the applicant never disclosed the purpose for which he requires those documents, the Enquiry Officer rightly rejected his prayer by stating that those were not relevant and were not relied upon in the charge memo. If those documents were relevant, the applicant ought to have disclosed the reasons therefor.
He cannot call for any documents at his sweet will. We do not find any infirmity in this decision of the Enquiry Officer.
21. The applicant has also asked for production of 10 witnesses for his defence. The Enquiry Officer by an order dated 12.12.90 directed that the applicant may produce his defence witnesses on his own and he may ensure their presence at his own initiative. The applicant contends that the Enquiry Officer ought to have issued official direction to those persons to be present as his defence witnesses. We find that the applicant asked for production of even the DIG as his witness who is also the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant. This is a very bold attempt on the part of the applicant to harass everybody he thinks fit and proper by citing them as his defence witness and shifting the onus to produce them on the Enquiry Officer. We do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Enquiry Officer directing the applicant to produce the defence witnesses at his own initiative.
22. The applicant has raised another contention that he was not permitted to engage a lawyer to defend himself in the enquiry because the Presenting Officer was a CBI Officer with special legal knowledge and hence he should have been allowed assistance of a lawyer. No doubt when a delinquent is pitted against a presenting officer having legally trained mind or a CBI Officer he is generally allowed permission to engage a lawyer in the departmental enquiry but it is to be noted here that the applicant himself is working in the CBI and in a departmental proceeding in the CBI any Presenting Officer must be a CBI Officer. If the applicant's plea is taken to be justified then in every departmental proceedings involving any CBI official a lawyer has to be allowed to assist a delinquent staff of the CBI. This is an absurd proposition. Moreover the charge against the applicant is only insubordination and not a complicated one. In such circumstances we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision of the authorities to deny the applicant's assistance of a lawyer in the conduct of the departmental proceeding.
23. The applicant has also raised a question whether the respondent No.6, DIG of Police, CBI, Calcutta Region can act as his Disciplinary Authority inasmuch as the Charge No. II relates to disobedience of order of respondent No. 6. Since the Charge No. II has not been proved against the applicant we need not discuss this point. Moreover, the Disciplinary Authority in this case is not the complainant and hence there is no bar in his acting as Disciplinary Authority.
24. The applicant has also raised a question whether the Joint Director, CBI, N.E. Region was to his Appellate Authority and his Appellate Authority was Joint Director, CBI (Admn.). Since both the persons are in the rank of Joint Director and are at the same level of hierarchy, even if Joint Director, CBI (Admn.) may be his Appellate Authority we do not consider that any prejudice has been caused to the applicant if Joint Director, N.E. Region had acted as his Appellate Authority.
25. Lastly the applicant has also raised a question whether the punishment imposed upon him was based on no evidence. We have already discussed in the earlier part of this order the detailed factual position leading to the punishment of the applicant. Before enhancement of the punishment the applicant was given due opportunity by the Appellate Authority and hence there was no illegality in enhancement of the punishment of the applicant by the Appellate Authority. Moreover, it is now settled position of law that the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere in the quantum of punishment imposed in the disciplinary enquiry unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against the delinquent.
26. The applicant has also taken a point that a copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished on him before the imposition of the penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. In this context it is to be noted that in view of the interim order passed by this Tribunal at the instance of the applicant the respondents were allowed to continue with the proceeding but no final order was to be communicated. Therefore on the conclusion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order but the same was not communicated to the applicant nor the enquiry report. In such circumstances the applicant cannot take this plea. In any event he was not prejudiced. He was ultimately given a copy of the enquiry report and he got opportunity to state his case against the enquiry report before the Appellate Authority. He has also taken a point that his prayer for further cross-examination of some witnesses was not considered by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that they were not called for re-examination. Normally, the defence may seek to recall a prosecution witness for further cross examination and the Enquiry Officer may allow it if cogent reasons are given. But in no case is made out the prayer can be refused by the Enquiry Officer vide A. Krishnaswamy v. Secretary, T.N. Electricity Board, 1981(1) SLR 218(Mad.) and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395.
Here, the applicant has not disclosed the reason for such further cross-examination. Hence, the decision of the Enquiry Officer in this regard cannot be faulted. The applicant has also raised a point that he wanted to be examined which was not allowed. However, in the reply, the respondents have stated that this opportunity was given to applicant subsequently but he did not avail this opportunity.
27. The applicant has relied on several decisions in support of his aforesaid contentions. However, we refrain from discussing all the decisions in this order in order not to make it lengthy. Moreover, all the decisions cited by the applicant are distinguishable and have no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
28. For the reasons stated above we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the punishment order imposed upon the applicant.
Consequently the application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.