The Union of India, Rep. by Director General, New Delhi and Others Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1188925
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-17-2016
Case NumberW.P.No. 19593 of 2014 & M.P.No. 1 of 2014
JudgeA. Selvam &Amp; P. Kalaiyarasan
AppellantThe Union of India, Rep. by Director General, New Delhi and Others
RespondentThe Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and Another
Excerpt:
(prayer: writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 30.08.2013 made in o.a.no.809 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent, the central administrative tribunal, chennai and quash the same.) p. kalaiyarasan, j. 1. this writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 30.08.2013 in o.a.no.809 of 2012 of the central administrative tribunal (madras bench) and quash the same. 2. the facts of the case are as follows : the second respondent is the applicant before the tribunal. the second respondent / applicant when working as officiating postmaster at dindigul head office, faced departmental proceedings. he was first issued with office memo and then charge memo, alleging that during the period from 18.01.2008 to 24.01.2008 sanctioned additional credit liability to the tune of rs.5,00,000/- without verifying the genuineness of the payment of huge amount with reference to the accounts of the depositors and he failed to initiate action as per rules for keeping excess cash by sub post master, vedasandur and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty. the second respondent / applicant was directed to submit his written statement of defence and he also submitted his written representation, dated 03.03.2011. (ii) the disciplinary authority, without conducting any oral enquiry, as requested by the applicant, ordered the recovery of rs.75,000/- at the rate of rs.2,500/- per month for 30 months commencing from may 2012. he preferred an appeal before the third petitioner herein and the appeal was also dismissed on 28.06.2012. (iii) the second respondent / applicant approached the central administrative tribunal and the order of the disciplinary authority has been quashed by the tribunal. against which, this writ petition has been filed by the union of india and other respondents before the tribunal. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the negligence of the second respondent / applicant has caused a pecuniary loss of rs.3,74,058/- to the department and rs.1,01,34,912/- subsequently. the second respondent / applicant did not make any request for perusal of the documents. it is further contended that the oral enquiry, as per rule 16(1)(a) central civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1965. (herein after called as ccs (cca), rules, 1965) is permissible, only in cases where it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period. but no such penalty was awarded to the second respondent / applicant and therefore, no enquiry is required. 4. the second respondent / applicant was served with a charge memo and directed to submit his written statement of defence. the second respondent / applicant also submitted his representation. in the written statement, the applicant sought reasonable opportunity to call for some additional documents and produce witness on his behalf to rebut the allegations. but the disciplinary authority without affording any opportunity to the second respondent / applicant passed orders for recovery of rs.75,000/- at the rate of rs.2,500/- per month. 5. the only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as per central civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1965, oral enquiry is required only in cases where the proposed punishment would affect the pensionary benefits and in this case, oral enquiry was not conducted as the punishment proposed did not affect the pensionary benefits. 6. in this case, huge amount, namely rs.75,000/- has been ordered to be recovered from the second respondent / applicant from his monthly salary at the rate of rs.2,500/- p.m. in any disciplinary proceedings, the employee should have a reasonable opportunity of being heard. the principles of natural justice requires that opportunity by way of oral enquiry, as requested by the second respondent / applicant should have been given. 7. as already pointed out, the second respondent / applicant made a request in writing to the disciplinary authority to afford him an opportunity to examine the witness, so as to rebut the charges levelled against him. 8. opportunity to defend oneself by examining witness and cross-examining the witness produced against him are required ingredients for affording reasonable opportunity and if such reasonable opportunity is not afforded, it amounts to violation of natural justice. 9. the tribunal relying upon the decisions of various benches of the central administrative tribunal and the high court held that recovery of money is a matter of civil consequence and the same is not permissible without conducting an regular enquiry. 10. even as per the rule cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, enquiry is required if punishment is to withhold increment of pay for a period exceeding three years. here in this case, recovery of rs.75,000/- at the rate of rs.2,500/- per month will run for nearly three years. such an order of recovery is to be construed graver than the punishment mentioned in the said rule. 11. the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contends that the charges levelled against the second respondent are vague and therefore, the punishment on the basis of vague charges is not sustainable. having perused the charges levelled against the second respondent / applicant, this court is not in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 12. for the reasons stated supra, this court is of the considered view that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed in the appeal, without affording a reasonable opportunity is not sustainable. the central administrative tribunal, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, has rightly quashed the proceedings and set aside the punishment imposed on the second respondent. in fine, this writ petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 30.08.2013 made in o.a.no.809 of 2012 on the file of the central administrative tribunal (madras bench), chennai. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Judgment:

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 30.08.2013 made in O.A.No.809 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same.)

P. Kalaiyarasan, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 30.08.2013 in O.A.No.809 of 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) and quash the same.

2. The facts of the case are as follows :

The second respondent is the applicant before the Tribunal. The second respondent / applicant when working as officiating Postmaster at Dindigul Head Office, faced departmental proceedings. He was first issued with office memo and then charge memo, alleging that during the period from 18.01.2008 to 24.01.2008 sanctioned additional credit liability to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- without verifying the genuineness of the payment of huge amount with reference to the accounts of the Depositors and he failed to initiate action as per Rules for keeping excess cash by Sub Post Master, Vedasandur and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty. The second respondent / applicant was directed to submit his written statement of defence and he also submitted his written representation, dated 03.03.2011.

(ii) The Disciplinary authority, without conducting any oral enquiry, as requested by the applicant, ordered the recovery of Rs.75,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month for 30 months commencing from May 2012. He preferred an appeal before the third petitioner herein and the appeal was also dismissed on 28.06.2012.

(iii) The second respondent / applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the order of the Disciplinary Authority has been quashed by the Tribunal. Against which, this writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and other respondents before the Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the negligence of the second respondent / applicant has caused a pecuniary loss of Rs.3,74,058/- to the Department and Rs.1,01,34,912/- subsequently. The second respondent / applicant did not make any request for perusal of the documents. It is further contended that the oral enquiry, as per Rule 16(1)(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. (herein after called as CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965) is permissible, only in cases where it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period. But no such penalty was awarded to the second respondent / applicant and therefore, no enquiry is required.

4. The second respondent / applicant was served with a charge memo and directed to submit his written statement of defence. The second respondent / applicant also submitted his representation. In the written statement, the applicant sought reasonable opportunity to call for some additional documents and produce witness on his behalf to rebut the allegations. But the Disciplinary Authority without affording any opportunity to the second respondent / applicant passed orders for recovery of Rs.75,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month.

5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as per Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, oral enquiry is required only in cases where the proposed punishment would affect the pensionary benefits and in this case, oral enquiry was not conducted as the punishment proposed did not affect the pensionary benefits.

6. In this case, huge amount, namely Rs.75,000/- has been ordered to be recovered from the second respondent / applicant from his monthly salary at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m. In any Disciplinary proceedings, the employee should have a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The principles of natural justice requires that opportunity by way of oral enquiry, as requested by the second respondent / applicant should have been given.

7. As already pointed out, the second respondent / applicant made a request in writing to the Disciplinary Authority to afford him an opportunity to examine the witness, so as to rebut the charges levelled against him.

8. Opportunity to defend oneself by examining witness and cross-examining the witness produced against him are required ingredients for affording reasonable opportunity and if such reasonable opportunity is not afforded, it amounts to violation of natural justice.

9. The Tribunal relying upon the decisions of various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court held that recovery of money is a matter of civil consequence and the same is not permissible without conducting an regular enquiry.

10. Even as per the Rule cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, enquiry is required if punishment is to withhold increment of pay for a period exceeding three years. Here in this case, recovery of Rs.75,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month will run for nearly three years. Such an order of recovery is to be construed graver than the punishment mentioned in the said Rule.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contends that the charges levelled against the second respondent are vague and therefore, the punishment on the basis of vague charges is not sustainable. Having perused the charges levelled against the second respondent / applicant, this Court is not in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

12. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed in the appeal, without affording a reasonable opportunity is not sustainable. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, has rightly quashed the proceedings and set aside the punishment imposed on the second respondent.

In fine, this writ petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 30.08.2013 made in O.A.No.809 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench), Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.