Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106669-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7246 of 2025 Petitioner :- M. Z. Sarwar Respondent :- Union of India and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Dubey, Vikrant Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Gopal Verma Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 08.11.2024 passed in O.A. No. 836 of 2016, whereby the original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The original application was filed aggrieved of the order dated 04.07.2014 passed by respondent no. 3 imposing penalty of reduction to two stages lower in the time scale of pay for a period of one year. 3. The petitioner, who was holding the post of Joint General Manager (Director), Ordinance Equipment Factory, Kanpur at the relevant time, was issued charge sheet by the President of India under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules of 1965') with the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior. After the inquiry was conducted, the Inquiry Officer gave a revised inquiry report exonerating the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. 4. The Disciplinary Authority by memorandum dated 02.12.2013, disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and while communicating tentative reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report in detail, required the petitioner to make his representation qua the said disagreement. The petitioner gave his reply to the disagreement memo seeking exoneration from all the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 04.07.2014, after considering the inquiry report, disagreement memo and representation of the petitioner and other relevant facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner exhibited lack of integrity and devotion in duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and found the charges proved and imposed the penalty of reduction to two stages lower in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further directions that he will not earn the increment of pay during this period but on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay. Feeling aggrieved, the present O.A. was filed. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority seems to have taken a right view after analyzing the evidence on record and that the conclusion arrived at was reasonable, appropriate and justifiable. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that once the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner from all the charges, there was no reason for the respondents to have imposed the punishment. Submissions have been made that the inquiry report was exhaustive and as such, there was no reason to disagree with the same and consequently, the order impugned imposing the punishment and order passed by the Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. Counsel for the respondents supported the orders impugned. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the sequence of events, as noticed hereinbefore, would reveal that in terms of provisions of Rules of 1965, the elaborate procedure provided therein has been meticulously followed by the respondents wherein on submission of inquiry report, when the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the same, an exhaustive memo of disagreement was served on the petitioner to which the petitioner gave a response and Disciplinary Authority, after meticulously dealing with the charges, inquiry report, memo of disagreement and response given by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the charges are proved. There has neither been violation of any of the provisions of law or rules nor there has been violation of principles of natural justice at any stage, which are necessary for either the Tribunal or this Court to interfere with the order of present nature. 10. In view thereof, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 SL (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad