Formal inquiry for minor penalties is discretionary under Rule 16, notwithstanding disputes regarding factual allegations.

The Applicant, an Assistant Accounts Officer and active member of a recognized service association, was involved in a confrontation with security personnel on April 2, 2009, while entering the office premises during her leave period to collect her salary

Following a representation by the Applicant and a subsequent preliminary statement, the respondents issued a charge memo under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging that she had bypassed security without showing identification and behaved discourteously, violating Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964

On December 15, 2010, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of withholding annual increments for three years without cumulative effect

Her appeal was rejected on January 2, 2012

The Applicant challenged these orders in 2016, seeking condonation of a 1156-day delay, claiming her files had been mixed up in her counsel's office

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by the law of limitation due to the delay of 1156 days

2. Whether the disciplinary authority was required to conduct a formal inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, when the material facts were disputed

3. Whether the non-supply of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority violated the principles of natural justice

The Tribunal applied Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties and vests the disciplinary authority with the discretion to decide whether a formal inquiry is necessary

It further relied on the principles established by the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. A. Prahalada Rao (2001 KHC 231), which held that a formal inquiry is not mandatory for minor penalties even if allegations are denied, effectively overriding the broader interpretation in O.K. Bharadwaj v. Union of India

The court also applied Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, regarding conduct unbecoming of a government servant

The Tribunal first observed that the explanation for the 1156-day delay was "absolutely vague," yet it chose to hear the case on merits since the matter had been pending for ten years

On the merits, the Applicant argued that under O.K. Bharadwaj, an inquiry was mandatory because she disputed the facts

The Tribunal rejected this, noting that Rule 16 gives the authority the power to decide the necessity of an inquiry

Referring to the Division Bench holding in CAG v. Unni P. (2018 KHC 211), the Tribunal emphasized that the disciplinary authority is not enjoined to order an inquiry every time an employee requests cross-examination

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had admitted the core incident of the verbal dialogue with security

Since the authority had perused statements from four security personnel and granted a personal hearing, the procedure was deemed sufficient

Regarding the non-supply of documents, the Tribunal held that Rule 16 only requires the substance of imputations to be communicated, not the underlying documents

The court held that the delay was not properly explained but primarily ruled that the disciplinary authority acted within its discretionary powers under Rule 16 by not conducting a formal inquiry

The penalty was found not to be excessive, and the challenge against the impugned orders at Annexures A1 and A2 was rejected

No costs were ordered