Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Chandra Bhushan Prasad Srivastava vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 9 November, 2012
(Reserved on 17.10.2012) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ALLAHABAD this the 09th day of November , 2012 Present: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER- J HONBLE MR. SHASHI PRAKASH, MEMBER-A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 129 of 2007 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Srivastava, S/o Shri Jang Bahadur Prasad Srivastava, Presently working as Junior Engineer-I, Electrical at Head Quarter, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi. Applicant. V E R S U S 1. Union of India through General Manager, North East Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi. 3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi. 4. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi. 5. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow. . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents Present for the Applicant: Sri Vinod Kumar Present for the Respondents: Sri K.P. Singh O R D E R
By Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, JM By way of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant is impugning the punishment order dated 28.03.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Order dated 21.12.2006 and further seeks direction from this Tribunal to direct the respondents to restore the original position with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant joined the respondents department as Charge Man B (Electrical) on 26.07.1989 at Electric Loco Shed under Western Railway, Baroda. He was transferred to North Eastern Railway on 13.03.1995. Subsequently the applicant was promoted as Section Engineer (Electrical) and posted at Sitapur Railway Station. While the applicant was working at Sitapur he was served with a major penalty charge sheet (SF-5) on 04.03.2004. By letter dated 11.03.2004 the applicant demanded certain documents which were supplied to him vide letter dated 18.03.2004. Thereafter by letter dated 23.03.3004 the applicant denied all the charges leveled against him. On 19.04.2004 one Shri Ramadhar Gupta was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.12.2004. Based upon the inquiry report a show cause notice was served upon the applicant on 13.01.2005 pursuant to which the applicant filed his reply on 28.01.2005. The Disciplinary Authority considering the reply of the applicant passed the order dated 28.03.2006 whereby reverting the applicant to lower in rank permanently in pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and fixed his pay at Rs. 6500/-. Aggrieved against the order the applicant preferred statutory appeal on 03.04.2006 which was partly allowed by the Appellate Authority on 28.03.2006 and modified the order of the Disciplinary Authority to the extant that punishment will continue temporarily for three years, hence the O.A .
3. Pursuant to the notice the respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing detailed Counter Reply in which it is averred that the Inquiry Officer following the principle of natural justice concluded the inquiry and ultimately agreeing with the inquiry report the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the punishment. With regard to the plea taken by the applicant that a retired employee cannot be appointed as Inquiry Officer, it is averred that as held by the Honble Supreme Court, retired employee can be appointed as Inquiry Officer.
4. The applicant filed Rejoinder denying all the averments made in the Counter Reply.
5. We have heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.P. Singh for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that out of four charges leveled against the applicant only charge No. 3 was found proved against the applicant and rest of the charges held not to be proved due to lack of evidence. He further argued that once the charges leveled against the applicant has not been proved then the punishment of reduction in pay scale is harsh and cannot be inflicted. He further argued that even the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not applied their mind while inflicting the punishment. In this regard he placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. U.O.I & Ors 1986 (3) SCC 103, Chairman / Disciplinary Authority Rani Laxmi Bai Vs. Jagdish Varshney and Ors. 2006 SCC (L&S) 840, N.M. Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company & Ors. 2008 Supreme Today 517, D.F.O Vs. Madhu Sudan Das 2006 (11) SCC 147.
7. On the other hand Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and placed reliance upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I & Ors. Vs. Parma Nanda 1989 (2) SCC 177 and argued that the Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision given by the executive and Tribunal cannot substitute its own decision by replacing the order of executive.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the pleadings on record.
9. The following charges were leveled against the applicant: -
vuqPNsn&1 bUgksusa [k.M dh vfHkj{kk esa fcuk ys[kkadu fd, fjyhTM lkexzh j[kh rFkk blds fy, dksbZ fkM~;wy Hkh ugha cuk;h vuqPNsn& 2 buds }kjk viuh iRuh Jherh laxhrk ds uke ls pkj ifg;k okgu <ek:fr oSu ;wih&78 ,ch@7762= fnlEcj 2000 esa dz; fd;k ftlds fy, foHkkxh; vuqefr ughaa izkIr dhA vuqPNsn& 3 bUgksus vius d;kZYk; esa yxs ch,l,u,y Qksu uaa 0 2234413 dk ,DlVsUku dk;kZy; vyx vius jsy vkokl ij vukf/k`r :Ik ls yxk;k rFkk bl laca/k esa lrdZrk tkap dks xqejkg djus dk iz;kl fd;k A vuqPNsn &4 buds }kjk ejEer ,oa j[k&j[kko ds en ls vfu;ferrk cjrh xbZ ftlds varxZr dkuiqj vuojxat fLFkr lcekflZcy iEi dks uoEcj 1999 ,oa fnlECkj 1999 esa yxkrkj nks ckj fjis;j djk;k rFkk nksuks gh voljksa ij vukf/kd`r :i ls ,d gh QeZ dks fjis;j dh tkus okyh en nh xbZA
10. The Inquiry Officer in his finding has only proved the charge No. 3 i.e. extension of official BSNL Ph. No. 2234413 to the residence of delinquent official. Rest of the charges have not been proved against the applicant. The finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge No. III reads as under: -
Article of Charge III;
Since the extension of the BSNLs office telephone to the residence of the C.O has not been sanctioned by the competent authority in terms of item 8.05 (1) of the SOPGEN, the charge is proved
11. Based upon the above finding of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of reduction in pay scale which subsequently has been modified by the Appellate Authority and it was restricted only for three years from the date of passing of the order by the Disciplinary Authority. It is also revealed that the Inquiry Officer has not considered the material fact that the approval by the Senior D.E.E. was given on the applicant of the applicant dated 15.03.2001 wherein the applicant requested to have extension of official telephone at his residence. A copy of letter dated 15.03.2001 is appended at Annexure A-11.
12. Once the competent authority has accorded the permission for extension of official telephone at his residence then the charge No. 3 cannot be said to be proved against the applicant. It shows non-application of mind by the Inquiry Officer and subsequently by the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, the Appellate Authority has also not considered this fact raised by the applicant in his appeal and has passed the order dated 21.12.2006. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot sustain in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of D.F.O Vs. Madhu Sudan Das (Supra). Relevant para 19 and 20 of the said judgment reads as under: -
19. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also having regard to the detailed manner in which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had dealt with the matter, including the explanation given regarding the disbursement of the money received by the respondent, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal and endorsed by the High Court. No doubt, the Divisional Forest Officer dealt with the matter in detail but it was also the duty of the appellate authority to give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondents. A similar duty was cast on the revisional authority being the highest authority in the Department of Forest in the State. Unfortunately , even the revisional authority has merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer had been examined by the Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved. He too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal from service.
20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interest of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and / or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given , but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.
13. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman / Disciplinary Authority Rani Laxmi Bai (Supra) and N.M. Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company & Ors (Supra).
14. In view of the observations made above, The O.A succeeds. The impugned orders dated 28.03.2006 and 21.12.2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. No costs.
(Shashi Prakash) (Sanjeev Kaushik)
Member-A Member-J
/Anand/
??
??
??
??
8
O.A No. 129 of 2007