Force; being supervisory officer of the Force, he committed discreditable conduct; he willfully violated the provisions of directives and transfer policy made for bonafide purpose on spouse ground transfer. However, the appellate authority framed one more charge against the petitioner that the petitioner committed forgery suppressing the factual information to mislead the administration and seek his personal benefit. Sri Mishra has submitted that the charge which was not levelled against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority may not be levelled against him by the appellate authority inasmuch as on that charge i.e. the charge of forgery, no departmental inquiry was conducted. Therefore, the charge of forgery may not sustain against the petitioner in the eyes of law. Besides, the petitioner has not committed any forgery misleading the administration to seek his personal benefits inasmuch as the undisputed fact is that the wife of the petitioner was earlier serving as Assistant Teacher in the State of U.P. and w.e.f. 03.10.2017, she has been serving as Shiksha Mitra at the same place getting honorarium from the public exchequer. For submitting any representation to get the benefit of guidelines dated 02.02.2010, even if one of the spouses is serving at any Private Sector, representation could have been preferred. This is not the case of the authorities that if the authorities were duly informed that the wife of the petitioner was serving as Shiksha Mitra in the State of U.P., the representation could have not been preferred. Sri Mishra has further submitted that this was absolutely upto the convenience and prerogative of the authority to follow the guidelines dated 02.02.2010 as far as it is possible. Therefore, Sri Mishra has stated that the petitioner has not misled the department so far as the guidelines dated 02.02.2010 are concerned. However, the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner, enhanced the punishment retiring him compulsorily with immediate effect.
