N. Parashuram Vs. the Director General, Geological Survey of India and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/939253
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided OnAug-06-2009
Case NumberOriginal Application No.455 of 2009
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MRS. BHARATI RAY MEMBER (JUDL.) & THE HONOURABLE MR. HRIDAY NARAIN MEMBER (ADMN.)
AppellantN. Parashuram
RespondentThe Director General, Geological Survey of India and Another
Advocates:Counsel for the Applicant : R. Yogender Singh, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents : K. Siva Reddy. Addl. CGSC.
Excerpt:
oral order (as per hon'ble mrs. bharati ray, member (juld.) ) heard mr. r. yogender singh, learned counsel for the applicant and mr. k. siva reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. this application has been filed seeking the following relief: “...to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet bearing no. 466/c- 13013/2/np/sr/2009-vig. dated 23.3.2009 of the 1st respondent, holding that the charges levelled against him are not involved with any misconduct under the service rules and to set aside the same; and consequently to direct the respondents to release his retirement benefits and pass such other order or orders as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. it is the case of the applicant that during january 2009 a criminal case was filed by the daughter-in-law of the applicant, in pursuance of which the applicant was detained in police custody from 11.1.2009 to 18.01.2009 and he was released on bail on 19.01.2009. the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.02.2009, copy of which is enclosed as annexure ii to the o.a. the applicant preferred an appeal against the order of suspension requesting for revocation which was rejected vide order dated 24.03.2009, copy of which is enclosed as annexure iv of the o.a. the applicant has been issued with charge memo under rule 14 of the ccs (cca) rules, 1965 vide proceedings dated 23.03.2009. questioning the proceedings dated 24.03.2009 and the charge memo dated 23.03.2009, the applicant has approached this tribunal seeking for the above relief. 4. we find no averment about the charge memo in the body of the application. however, the applicant questioned the charge memo dated 23.03.2009, copy of which is enclosed as annexure iii to the o.a. the charges levelled against the applicant are as under: “article i:- that shri n. parasuram, map mounter (under suspension) while functioning in map and cartography division, gsi, sr, hyderabad, has suppressed the fact that he was arrested on 11.01.2009, by the police, women police station, khammam, on the complaint of smt. bhukya jyothi, daughter-in-law of sri n. parasuram, map mounter, and a criminal case vide cr. no. 01/2009, u/sec.498(a) of ipc and sec. 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act was registered against him, and he was under custody for 8 days till he was released on bail on 19.01.2009. thus, n. parasuram, map mounter (under suspension) behaved in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, contravening the provisions of rule 3 (1)(iii) of ccs (conduct) rules, 1964. article ii:- that shri n. parasuram, map mounter (under suspension), while functioning in map and cartography division, gsi, sr, hyderabad, applied for casual leave and restricted holidays on 12.01.2009, 15.01.2009, 16.01.2009, 19.01.209, 20.01.2009 and 13.01.2009 suppressing the fact he was arrested by the police, women police station, khammam on 11.01.2009. thus, n. parasuram, map mounter (under suspension) behaved in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, contravening the provisions of rule 3 (1)(iii) of ccs (conduct) rules, 1964.” learned counsel for the applicant submitted that enquiry officer has been appointed and the enquiry is being conducted and the applicant is participating in the inquiry. 5. the respondents contested the application and filed counter reply. it is the case of the respondents that since the applicant was issued charge memo before his retirement on 31.03.2009, he is in receipt of provisional pension and he is not entitled for gratuity during the pendency of the departmental proceedings. in this context, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn out attention to rule 69 of the ccs (pension) rules and submitted that under sub-rule (1)(b) of rule 69, provisional pension shall be paid during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority. he further contended that as per sub-rule (1)(c) of rule 69, no gratuity shall be paid to the applicant until conclusion of the departmental proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant is being paid provisional pension. 6. it is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the applicant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, it is obvious that the suspension order has already been revoked. he further submits that in regard to the charge sheet issued to the applicant inquiry is going on and as such, the same cannot be questioned at this stage and this tribunal cannot interfere at this stage. 7. we find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. since the charge sheet has already been issued and the charges relate to the incidents which took place prior to the retirement of the applicant and the inquiry proceedings are going on, we find no reason to interfere with the departmental proceedings at this stage. 8. we, therefore, dismiss the o.a. accordingly. however, the applicant is at liberty to approach this tribunal after final orders are passed in the departmental proceedings if he is aggrieved of such orders and is so advised, after duly exhausting the remedies available to him as per rules. 9. in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (Juld.) )

Heard Mr. R. Yogender Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K. Siva Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. This application has been filed seeking the following relief:

“...to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet bearing No. 466/C- 13013/2/NP/SR/2009-Vig. Dated 23.3.2009 of the 1st respondent, holding that the charges levelled against him are not involved with any misconduct under the service rules and to set aside the same; and consequently to direct the respondents to release his retirement benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. It is the case of the applicant that during January 2009 a criminal case was filed by the daughter-in-law of the applicant, in pursuance of which the applicant was detained in police custody from 11.1.2009 to 18.01.2009 and he was released on bail on 19.01.2009. The applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.02.2009, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure II to the O.A. The applicant preferred an appeal against the order of suspension requesting for revocation which was rejected vide order dated 24.03.2009, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure IV of the O.A. The applicant has been issued with charge memo under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide proceedings dated 23.03.2009. Questioning the proceedings dated 24.03.2009 and the charge memo dated 23.03.2009, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for the above relief.

4. We find no averment about the charge memo in the body of the application. However, the applicant questioned the charge memo dated 23.03.2009, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure III to the O.A. The charges levelled against the applicant are as under:

“Article I:-

That Shri N. Parasuram, Map Mounter (Under Suspension) while functioning in Map and Cartography Division, GSI, SR, Hyderabad, has suppressed the fact that he was arrested on 11.01.2009, by the Police, Women Police Station, Khammam, on the complaint of Smt. Bhukya Jyothi, Daughter-in-law of Sri N. Parasuram, Map Mounter, and a criminal case vide Cr. No. 01/2009, U/Sec.498(A) of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against him, and he was under custody for 8 days till he was released on bail on 19.01.2009.

Thus, N. Parasuram, Map Mounter (Under Suspension) behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, contravening the provisions of Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article II:-

That Shri N. Parasuram, Map Mounter (Under Suspension), while functioning in Map and Cartography Division, GSI, SR, Hyderabad, applied for Casual Leave and Restricted Holidays on 12.01.2009, 15.01.2009, 16.01.2009, 19.01.209, 20.01.2009 and 13.01.2009 suppressing the fact he was arrested by the Police, Women Police Station, Khammam on 11.01.2009.

Thus, N. Parasuram, Map Mounter (Under Suspension) behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, contravening the provisions of Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that enquiry officer has been appointed and the enquiry is being conducted and the applicant is participating in the inquiry.

5. The respondents contested the application and filed counter reply. It is the case of the respondents that since the applicant was issued charge memo before his retirement on 31.03.2009, he is in receipt of provisional pension and he is not entitled for gratuity during the pendency of the departmental proceedings. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn out attention to Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and submitted that under sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 69, provisional pension shall be paid during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority. He further contended that as per sub-rule (1)(c) of Rule 69, no gratuity shall be paid to the applicant until conclusion of the departmental proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant is being paid provisional pension.

6. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the applicant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, it is obvious that the suspension order has already been revoked. He further submits that in regard to the charge sheet issued to the applicant inquiry is going on and as such, the same cannot be questioned at this stage and this Tribunal cannot interfere at this stage.

7. We find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. Since the charge sheet has already been issued and the charges relate to the incidents which took place prior to the retirement of the applicant and the inquiry proceedings are going on, we find no reason to interfere with the departmental proceedings at this stage.

8. We, therefore, dismiss the O.A. accordingly. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach this Tribunal after final orders are passed in the departmental proceedings if he is aggrieved of such orders and is so advised, after duly exhausting the remedies available to him as per rules.

9. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.