Karnataka High Court
The Commandant And Managing Director vs A Balakrishnan on 19 December, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NOs.57438-57441 OF 2013 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. The Commandant & Managing
Director, 551 Army Base
Workshop, Ulsoor
Bangalore-560 008.
2. The Office Incharge
EME Record's (Army)
Secundarbad-500021.
3. The Commander Headquarters
EME Base Workshop Group
Meerut Cantonment
Meerut-250 001.
4. The Directorate General of
EME (EME Civ-2)
Master General of Ordinance
2
Branch, Integrated HQ of
MOD (Army), DHQ PO,
New Delhi-110 011. ..Petitioners
(By Sri Amaresh N, Adv.,)
AND :
A. Balakrishnan
Staff No.146912727K
S/o late V. Alagar Iyengar
Aged about 49 years
Working as Senior Store Keeper
O/o The Commandant & Managing
Director, 515, Army Base Workshop
Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008
Resident of No.6, Poojari
Gopalareddy Layout
Horamavu Main Road Cross
Kalyananagar Post Office
Doddabanasawadi
Bangalore-560 043. ..Respondent
(By Sri A. Balakrishnan - Party in person)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A.No.355/2008 vide
Annexure-A.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.,
made the following:-
3
ORDER
The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short), Bangalore Bench in O.A. No.355/2008 dated 25.9.2012 is called in question in these writ petitions by the petitioners.
2. While the respondent was working as a Store Keeper, he was issued with the charge sheet on 3.3.2006 for the alleged disobedience and tampering with official letter dated 9.8.2005. The enquiry was conducted and by the report dated 9.4.2006, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority based on the material on record, issued an order of punishment withholding one increment of pay for a period of six months without cumulative effect, on 28.8.2006. The appeal preferred by the respondent also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 30.6.2008. The respondent approached CAT by filing O.A. No.355/2008 for setting 4 aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent in-part and directed the petitioners to promote the respondent as Senior Store Keeper notionally w.e.f. 1.4.2006 (the date on which his juniors were promoted) and to fix his pay accordingly. It is made clear by the CAT that the respondent is not entitled for any arrears of pay for the interregnum period i.e., from 1.4.2006 to the date of his actual promotion.
3. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is for a period of six months from 28.8.2006, which expired on 28.2.2007. On the very day i.e. on 28.2.2007 itself the respondent was promoted to the cadre of Senior Store Keeper.
5
We also do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal fixing the date of promotion of the respondent notionally w.e.f. 1.4.2006 inasmuch as on that date, his juniors were promoted to the next higher cadre. As on the date of meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC' for short), the charge sheet was not yet issued against the respondent as is clear from paragraph-9 of the order of the Tribunal. It means, the charge sheet itself was not prepared and served on the respondent as on the date when the DPC met for considering the promotion of the respondent and others to the next higher cadre. Thus there was no reason for the DPC to ignore the candidature of the respondent for promotion. Consequently, the respondent, in ordinary course would have got promotion to the next higher cadre w.e.f 1.4.2006, on which date his juniors were promoted. The Tribunal has also observed so during the course of the 6 impugned order. Since no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal, the same need not be interfered with.
Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-