Sri Bhupen Das vs KVS on 14 October 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “8.1. To set aside/quash the Order dated 28/12/2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority - cum- Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Guwahati under No. 20062/02/2022-KVS (GR)/2995-2999 whereby the Applicant was dismissed from his service; 8.2. To set aside/ quash the Order dated 5/2/2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Acad) & Appellate Authority whereby the Appeal of the Applicant filed on16/5/2023 was rejected; 8.2. To direct the Respondents to re-consider the

Order

dated 28/12/2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority -cum- Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Guwahati under No. 20062/02/2022-KVS (GR)/2995-2999 afresh;

8.3. Direct the respondents to modify the impugned dated 28/12/2022 and 5/2/2024 to the extend to send the Applicant to compulsory retirement; 8.5. Any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice; 8.6. Cost of the litigation.”

2. Sri P.K. Roy, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was initially appointed as Primary Teacher at Kendriya

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Vidyalaya on 09.11.1992 and posted at Rupa, Arunachal Pradesh and thereafter, he was posted at Assam. On 02.09.2013, he was nominated as Teacher Member of Vidyalaya Management Committee when he had been working as TGT at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Tezpur for the session of 2013-14. When he had been working as Trained Graduate Teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Missamari, the Principal of the said Kendriya Vidyalaya namely Sri Vijanandan Pandey lodged an FIR with Missamari Police Station on 9/8/2019 on the basis of a complaint received from a girl child of the school regarding bad touch by a teacher namely Bhupen Das .i.e. the applicant. The Missamari Police Station on receipt of the said FIR registered the same as Missamari P.S. case No. 118/2019 U/s 8 of POCSO Act, against which, applicant filed an Anticipatory Bail Petition before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, which was registered as A.B. No. 3463/2019 wherein the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide Order dated 04/10/2019 granted interim protection to the applicant. Before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court could hear the matter finally, the Investigating Officer submitted the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Charge Sheet. Therefore, when the said Bail Petition was come up before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on 9/12/2019, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court had directed the applicant to appear before the Hon'ble Court below within 15 days and till than extended the interim bail granted to the applicant. The Applicant appeared before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Court on 20/12/2019 and the Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 20/12/2019 allowed the applicant to go on bail.

3. Learned Sr. Advocate contended that after Charge sheet, the Hon'ble Trial Court below registered the same as Special (POCSO) Case No. 25/2019. The Hon'ble Trial Court farmed Charges u/s 8 of POCSO Act. In the said case, the prosecution side examined 7 witnesses and finally vide Judgment and Order dated 30/6/2022 sentenced the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 (three) years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- only in default imprisonment for another three months. After pronouncement of Judgment, applicant filed a petition before the Hon'ble Trial Court to allow him to remain in pervious bail so that he can challenge the said Judgment of conviction before the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Trial Court allowed the applicant to remain in previous bail. Thereafter, applicant filed a Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court challenging the judgment of conviction passed against him. Said Criminal Appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No.171/2022. In the said Criminal Appeal, applicant also filed an Interlocutory Application seeking suspension of the sentence of conviction. The said Interlocutory Application was registered as I.A (Crl) No. 412/2022. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide Order dated 5/8/2022 stayed the operation of the sentence imposed against the applicant. Although on the FIR lodged against the applicant was charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer and a criminal trial against the applicant was commenced parerelly, the Kendriya Vidyalaya authority started a summery enquiry against the applicant and he was directed to appear personally on 10/2/2021 at 11.00 A.M. before the Enquiry Committee vide letter dated 03/02/2021. On receiving the said letter, applicant appeared before the Enquiry Committee. In the said enquiry, statements of the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

students and the teachers have been recorded. But the report of the said enquiry Committee has not been made public and a copy of the same was also not furnished to the applicant yet. On 19/9/2022 after staying of his sentence by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, applicant made an RTI application before authority seeking the summary enquiry report, Copy of the attendance Register (S) of the students of Class-VII B 2019 Batch, of the Month of August, received by the concerned office of the School and the copies of the attendance Register(s) signed by the teachers in the month of August, 2019 of the KV Missamari, RO Guwahati. In reply of the said RTI Petition, the replying authority vide reply dated 25/26-10-2022 answered regarding the departmental enquiry by stating that no departmental enquiry was conducted against the applicant as per records, but a summary enquiry was conducted against allegation of misbehaviour with a girl student. In the answer column of the said query, the replying authority further stated that FIR was filed under POCSO Act against the Applicant and the matter is sub-judice, therefore, the summary report cannot be provided. So far the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

attendance registers are concerned; those are furnished to the applicant.

4. Learned Sr. Advocate has further contended that the applicant was transferred and posted from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Missamari to Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, A.F.S., Tezpur on 25/10/2021 on his request i.e. during the pendency of the Trial. When the applicant was working in the said School on 12/10/2022 the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2 Tezur issued a show cause notice to the applicant asking him to submit reply on the charge of insubordination as because he did not apprised the School about his conviction by the Trial Court and his appeal preferred in the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. The Applicant answered the said show cause. Thereafter, on 31/10/2022 the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vide Order dated 31/10/2022 placed the applicant under suspension. On 07/11/2022, applicant submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office Guwahati with the prayer for revocation of his suspension. In the meantime on 04/11/2022, applicant made

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

another RTI application before the authority seeking summary enquiry report made against him along with other information. However, Deputy Commissioner-cum- Disciplinary Authority vide Memorandum dated 21.11.2022, dismissed the applicant from service under Rule 11(ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; against which, applicant replied on 29.11.2022. In the meantime, on 06.12.2022, the authority replied to the RTI application submitted by the applicant dated 04.11.2022. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vide detailed order dated 28.12.2022 dismissed the applicant from service. Thereafter, applicant made a RTI application on 13.01.2023 before the authority to furnish him the Summary Enquiry Report, which was not replied to him. Thereafter, he made another reminder RTI application on 08.02.2023. In connection to the earlier RTI application dated 13.01.2023, the authority vide reply dated 10.02.2023 apprised the applicant that based on conviction order dated 30.06.2022 of Special Court at Sonitpur, Tezpur in Special (POCSO) case No. 25/2019, applicant’s service was terminated. By the said reply, it was also apprised that no

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

action was taken against the applicant on the Summary Report of enquiry held by KVS (RO) Guwahati as well as on the Summary Enquiry Report of Internal Complaint Committee. It was also apprised that as the matter was sub- judice, therefore, the said report cannot be provided to the applicant. But vide the said reply, the Authority furnished a copy of the impugned Order dated 28/12/2022 to the applicant. Furthermore, on 28/02/2023, the RTI application dated 8/2/2023 submitted by the applicant was replied, which the applicant received on 02/03/2023 and further on 28.03.2023, the authority provided the Teachers Time table of 08/08/2019 of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Missamari to the applicant. In the meantime the period of appeal has been expired.

5. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that since the Hon'ble High Court had stayed the sentence of imprisonment, the Disciplinary Authority acted prematurely and arbitrarily in issuing the Dismissal Order dated 28.12.2022 under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, without awaiting the final outcome of the criminal appeal. He argued that the alternative prayer for compulsory retirement should

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

be considered given the applicant's long tenure since 1992. The learned Sr. Advocate has also placed reliance the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 which is perused and taken on record.

6. By filing written statement, Smt. R. S. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel for the KVS submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that Court cannot go into that question of relative hardship. It would be for the administration to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration. As per the respondents, while the applicant may face personal financial challenges, the seriousness of the offense and the risk posed to student safety outweigh individual financial considerations. As such, employment in a position that involves close interaction with children requires a high standard of trust and responsibility, which cannot be compromised by personal liabilities or obligations. By referring para 11 of the OM dated 21.07.2016, respondents state that action against a convicted Government Servant should be taken straight away under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules,

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

1965. An appeal against the conviction or even a stay on the sentence will have no effect unless the conviction itself is stayed. And, therefore, in light of the instant OM dated 21.07.2016, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority been found in order by the Appellate Authority and, hence, the Appellate Authority did not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. More so, continuance of such a convicted teacher in the service, where he shall be essentially dealing with minor students during discharge of his duties, may prove highly detrimental to the students. Hence, the action of the respondents is within the realm of service jurisprudence and no fault can be assigned to the Order dated 28.12.2022, impugned in the instant OA. In support of the arguments, learned KVS Standing counsel placed reliance the case of Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 106.

7. Sri P.K. Roy, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. R.S. Choudhury,

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

learned NVS Standing counsel for the respondents were heard at length and scrutinised the entire records of the case.

8. The assertion of the applicant is that the order of dismissal dated 28.12.2022 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority only on the grounds that the applicant is a convicted person convicted by the Trial Court on a serious Criminal Charge of Section 8 of POCSO Act.

9. From the perusal of records, it is noted that the applicant was found guilty of sexual offence against a girl child, who was his own student. Accordingly, after all formalities, enquiry was conducted by Committee on a complaint of inappropriate touch by a student against the applicant and submitted their report on 06.09.2019. The inference of the Committee is as follows: “As per the report of 9th August 2019 a complaint of inappropriate touch by the girl child (victim) and the denial of the teacher (accused). However written statement by the three witness about the behaviour of teacher and further verification of teacher’s attitude toward student with random interview of 10 student on 4th September 2019 (inputs enclosed) it has been found that teachers behaviour especially with the girl student is inappropriate and the allegation against the teacher by the victim cannot be denied upon.”

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Thereafter, applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.10.2022 and finally dismissed from service vide detailed order dated 28.12.2022, and the contents thereof, are being reproduced below:

ORDER

WHEREAS, Shri Bhupen Das, TGT (Eng), KV Missamari (Now under suspension in KV No.2 Tezpur) has been convicted in a criminal case u/s- 8 of the POCSO Act with the following sentence by The Judge, Special Court (POCSO) at Sonitpur, Tezpur in Special (POCSO) Case No.25/2019 vide judgement dated 30 June 2022 :- "41. I sentence the convict accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 (Three) years and a fine of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in default imprisonment for another three months u/s 8 of The POCSO Act. Benefit w/s 428 Cr PC to be given to the accused wherever applicable. If any fine is recovered, in connection with this case, the same shall be deposited to the DLSA, Sonitpur, Tezpur." AND WHEREAS, aggrieved by the said order, Shri Bhupen Das, TGT (Eng) filed an appeal before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court which has been duly admitted by the Hon'ble High Court. AND WHEREAS, on careful the consideration of the Judgement dated 30 June 2022 in The Special Court Sonitpur, Tezpur, in special (POCSO) Case No. 25/2019, the undersigned provisionally came to conclusion that Shri Bhupen Das is not a fit person to be retained in service of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan due to his conviction on Criminal Charge under POCSO Act and that the gravity of the charges warrants the imposition of a major penalty. Accordingly, it was proposed to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from service in accordance with rule 11 (ix) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum No. 20062/02/2022-

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

KVS(GR)/2540-42 dated 21/22.11.2022 and Shri Bhupen Das, TGT (Eng) was given an opportunity of making representation in writing which he may wish to make against the penalty proposed. AND WHEREAS, Shri Bhupen Das, TGT (Eng) submitted his written representation dated 29.11.2022, which was forwarded by Principal, KV No.2 Tezpur vide letter dated 30.11.2022. Shri Bhupen Das, TGT (Eng) made following submissions in his defence vide his representation dated 29.11.2022: *On registration of Case No. 118/2019 under section 8 of POCSO Act at Missamari P S on FIR filed by the Principal, KV Missamari on 09.08.2019, he preferred an Anticipatory Bail Petition before Hon'ble High Court Gauhati viz. AB No. 3463/2019 and Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide order dated 04.10.2019, while calling the case diary, granted interim bail to him being satisfied with his innocence. *Although he was punished with rigorous imprisonment (vide order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 25/2019) but was not taken up under custody rather he was granted bail vide order dated 30.06.2022 to prefer an Appeal against the order of conviction. *Aggrieved by the order of conviction (order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 25/2019), he preferred a Criminal Appeal Crl. A. No. 171/2022 and further filed Interlocutory Application IA (Crl) No. 412/2022 seeking suspension of the order dated 30.06.2022 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. The Hon'ble High Court after hearing the parties and being satisfied, suspended the order dated 30.06.2022 vide order dated 05.08.2022 while admitting the appeal. *He was initially suspended vide order dated 31.10.2022 only on the cause that he was convicted and awarded rigorous imprisonment. He made an application for revocation of the said suspension order which is still pending. Although

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

he was convicted by Hon'ble Court of Special Judge, Sonitpur but the operation of the said Order is suspended by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and therefore no action against him can be taken on the basis of order of conviction dated 30.06.2022. Any action against him on the basis of the said order is bad in law and is violative to order of Hon'ble High Court as well as principle of natural justice and the fundamental rights acquired by him through the Constitution of India. *Although, the matter (related to the case) was referred to the authority but no departmental enquiry was conducted against him. Only a summary enquiry was conducted against him on alleged misbehaviour, not on physical abuse of a girl student. The report of the said summary enquiry is not furnished to him. *Allegation against him is that of misbehaviour and the same cannot be termed as physical abuse against a girl student. Although, he was suspended but no departmental enquiry/proceedings has been initiated against him and imposing penalty against him without initiating departmental proceeding is harsh to him. *During his long service there is not a single blemish in his service career. The Hon'ble Guahati High Court, prima facie being satisfied of his innocence suspended order of conviction (dated 30.06.2022) and he is of firm belief that his sentence/conviction will be overturned by the Hon'ble High Court. If dismissed from service on basis of conviction, he will suffer a lot and be punished without any fault. *Once the Hon'ble High Court suspended his sentence, the same means that effect and operation of the order of conviction is suspended and same cannot be used as grounds for an action which will prejudice him in any manner. *He has a family including a boy who is studying at Assam Downtown University. He has many burdens on his shoulder and has loans to pay. If he is terminated from service, then he and the whole family will suffer as there is no other means for him to earn his livelihood.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

On basis of above submissions, he has prayed not to take any action and also to withdraw memorandum dated 21/22.11.2022. AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the rule 19 (i) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority can impose the penalty on the Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminal charges and may issue such an order without waiting for the period of filing an appeal, or, if an appeal has been filed, without waiting for the decision of the said appeal. It is stated that rules provide that the person against whom action is taken on basis of conviction shall be given a reasonable opportunity before imposing the penalty. Accordingly, the submissions of Shri Bhupen Das made vide representation dated 29.11.2022 in response to memorandum dated 21/22.11.2022 have been considered. AND WHEREAS, it is observed that his representation is mainly based on the contention that (i) he has not been arrested but given bail (ii) his appeal has been admitted and the order of conviction dated 30 June 2022 has been suspended by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court (iii) no departmental proceedings are initiated against him. As far as non-arrest/grant of bail/admission of Appeal/suspension of conviction is concerned, these are normal judicial procedures and does not amount to acquittal. The fact is that as on date, he is a convicted person that too on serious criminal charges u/s-8 of the POCSO Act. Continuance of such a convicted teacher in the service, where he shall be essentially dealing with minor students during discharge of his duties, may prove highly detrimental to the students. Further, his contention that no departmental proceedings has been initiated against him is also not on sound footing. Firstly, the judicial proceedings are much more rigorous than any departmental proceedings and as such the outcome of judicial proceedings is much more reliable. Secondly, the Rule 19 (i) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, itself provide for penalty without disciplinary proceedings if the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

employee has been convicted on criminal charges. AND WHEREAS, the undersigned being the Competent Disciplinary Authority, after going through the order of conviction dated 30 June 2022 of Special Court at Sonitpur, Tezpur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 25/2019 point by point and after considering the representation dated 29.11.2022 in response to Memorandum dated 21/22.11.2022, has finally come to the conclusion that Shri Bhupen Das, TGT (Eng) is not a fit person to be retained in services of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as he has been found guilty of sexual offence against a girl child, who was his own student, and has been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) years and a fine of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand)by the Hon'ble Special Court vide its order dated 30 June 2022 on the basis of the evidence produced before it. Continuance of such a person in service in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is a threat to young children with whom he shall be required to interact regularly during course of his duties. AND WHEREAS, the need to wait for the final outcome of the appeal of Shri Bhupen Das filed before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court does not arise as of now. Should Shri Bhupen Das succeed on merit and secure an honourable acquittal from Hon'ble High Court, the decision taken herein may always be revisited on his representation and appropriate orders, as deemed fit and proper, shall be passed at that time. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred by the rule 19 (i) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as extended to employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, the undersigned hereby dismisses Shri Bhupen Das, TGT (Eng) (Under Suspension), attached to KV No.2 Tezpur from the service of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan with immediate effect.

10. The boundaries of judicial review over departmental actions have been tightly defined by the Hon'ble Supreme

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610. This Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over administrative decisions or substitute its own opinion on the proportionality of punishment unless the penalty imposed shocks the conscience of the Court. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as under: "12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”

11. The underlying finding of guilt pronounced by the competent Special Court remains active and legally binding until the conviction itself is explicitly overturned or set aside on

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

its merits by the appellate court. The administrative machinery retains its full authority to remove an employee from public service based on that conviction to protect the integrity of the establishment.

12. Furthermore, we must look at the operational environment of the institution. Kendriya Vidyalayas are co- educational schools where the safety, protection, and psychological security of minor children are of paramount importance. A teacher stands in loco parentis to their students. Once a specialized judicial court conducts a trial, evaluates the testimonies of witnesses, and finds a teacher guilty of the sexual abuse of a minor ward under the POCSO Act, the character of that individual is compromised. In our society, the role of a teacher is held in high regard.

13. Allowing a person convicted of a child abuse offense to remain on the payroll, or modifying their penalty to compulsory retirement to extend retirement benefits, would compromise the safety standards of the institution and run counter to public interest. The respondents acted properly within their administrative authority by basing the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

dismissal order dated 28.12.2022 on the judicial conviction order dated 30.06.2022. The fact that the internal summary report was kept confidential has no bearing on the case, as the dismissal was driven by the judicial conviction. Therefore, both the dismissal order dated 28.12.2022 and the appellate order dated 05.02.2024 are fully sustainable.

14. Keeping in view of the above, and having considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Gunasekaran (supra) discussed above and in view of the absolute necessity of ensuring a safe and secure environment for minor children in educational institutions, and finding that the judicial conviction remains active, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders of the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority do not warrant interference, as the applicant has failed to make out a case in his favour.

15. Accordingly, the O.A. stands dismissed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY