Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
V Ravinder vs Comptroller And Auditor-General Of ... on 31 October, 2018
Wf CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL : HYDERABAD BENCH AT HYDERABAD QA/020/00380/2014 Date of CAV: 04.10.2018 Date of Order :3! -10-2018 Between:
V, Ravinder S/o V. Sammi Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ : Senior Accountant, Funds -- 22 Section, O/o Principal Accountant General (A&E), AP, Hyderabad, R/o Flat No.302, Vasista Apartments, H.No.1-2-597/9, Barafbagh, Domalguda, Hyderabad -- 500 029.
AND i Union of India, Rep by its
1. Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Rep by its Comptrolier & Auditor General of India, New Delhi.
2. The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Andhra Pradesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004.
3. The Dy. Accountant General (Admn.), O/o The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Andhra Pradsesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad -- 500 004. .. Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. K, Anantha Rao .. Applicant Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. V.Vinod Kumar, Sr. CGSC CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.B.V.SUDHAKAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER THE HON'BLE MR.SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Order per Hon'ble Mr.Swarup Kumar Mishra, Judicial Member) Caso.
This application is filed under section 19 of the A.T.Act, 1985 for the following relief :-
ee That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of the 2"? respondent bearing No. PAG (A&E)/CoC/DC-2/8-329/2012- 13/No.89, dt. 21.03.2013 confirming the order of the 3" respondent bearing No. PAG(A&E)/CoC/CII/8-329/2012-13/No.89, dt.21.03.2013 confirming the order of the 3" respondent bearing No.PAG(A&E)/CoC/DCII/8-329/2012-13/TR-37, dt.06.09.2012 imposing a punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect declaring the same as illegal and against the principles of reasonable opportunity and totally disproportionate to the charge and consequently direct the respondents to release the increments which had been withheld with all consequential benefits thereon and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. "
The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant herein as first appointed as a Clerk in the office of the 3 respondent in the year 1992. He was promoted as an Accountant and further as Senior Accountant and has been discharging his duties for long years to the best of his ability and utmost satisfaction of his superiors. He has a clean record of service. In the year 2010 while he was working as Senior Accountant, an allegation was made against him which is as follows :
" That the said Sri V. Ravinder Sr. Accountant while working in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) barged into the cabin of Smt. Sakuntala the then Sr. Accounts Officer on 14.05.2010 around closing time of that day at about 05.35 PM to 06.00 PM without seeking her permission and started shouting at Smt. N.LJ. Rani, Asst. Accounts Officer, who was present at that time in the Sr. Accounts Officer Cabin, in a vry abusive and unparliamentary language for about 15 minutes showing no respect to his senior officers in the presence of another Sr. Accounts Officer.
Thus by using abusive and unparliamentary language against superior officer in the office premises, Sri Ravindr not oly showed in Sub-
ordination but also behaved in a manner unbecoming of a 2 Government Servant-and<thereby violated rules 3(1}(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
3. After receipt of the charge memo the applicant had filed his reply denying the charge and requesting for copies of the complaints made against the applicant on the basis of which the charge was framed so that he could give an effective reply to the charge. However, the disciplinary authority proceeded further and appointed Smt. Lajvanthi Thakore, Accounts Officer as the Inquiring Authority.
4. The applicant submits that, after a presenting officer was appointed for the inquiry on behalf of the Department the applicant had made a representation on 08.02.2011 requesting the 3" respondent and the inquiry officer to permit him to take the services of a professional lawyer as his defence assistant. However, the inquiry officer without referring the matter to the disciplinary authority had rejected the same by her proceedings dated 11.02.2011 saying that since the rules enable the appointment of a professional lawyer as a Defence Assistant only if the presenting officer is a legal practitioner ignoring the fact that a superior officer is making an allegation against a sub-ordinate of having used unparliamentary language and it would be difficult for a sub-ordinate ° officer to confront a superior officer in the inquiry. Thereby the whole concept of reasonable opportunity has been denied to the applicant.
5. The applicant further states that he had made an application to permit him to produce some documents and defence witnesses on his behalf to the inquiry authority in which he had requested for the statement Rao, Sr. Accounts Officer, Funds Section by his representation dated 15.04.2011. The applicant had requested that the said Sri J.C. Subba Rao, Sr. Accounts Officer who is a superior officer to the applicant should be cailed in his defence in the inquiry by the inquiring authority but the inquiring authority had not done so. Therefore, the applicant was denied reasonable opportunity.
6. The applicant submits that he had then made an application for other persons to be called for the inquiry as defence witnesses by his application dated 26.07.3022. Some defence witnesses were called and examined except Sri J.C. Subba Rao. The allegation against the applicant is that he had used abusive and unparliamentary language against one Smt.N.L.J. Rani. But the said Smt. Rani has never lodged any complaint against the applicant. Astonishingly the Superior Officer Smt. Sakunthala had made a complaint in the matter which was not made available to the applicant and on the basis of this complaint the whole inquiry had been initiated. Neither in the complaint nor in the statements of the prosecution witnesses the so called abusive language was even stated. Except saying that the applicant used abusive language what, abusive language was used is not stated anywhere, Moreover, the prosecution witnesses did not support the charge. Some witnesses stated that the applicant had used unparliamentary language against one Sri Osman who is a prosecution --
witness while the allegation is that the applicant has used abusive language 4 a e "
against Smt. N.LJ. Rani. mt. N.LJ. Rani who was examined as a Prosecution witness clearly stated before the inquiry authority that the applicant did not abuse her. The inquiring authority had held the charge proved mainly on statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry totally disregarding the statements made in the regular enquiry. Therefore the action of the inquiry officer is totally disregarding the statements made in the regular enquiry. Therefore the action of the inquiry officer is totally against the evidence on record in the inquiry.
7. The applicant further states that, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is that of withholding one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The effect of this punishment would be that the applicant would get a lower pay throughout his service and would get a lower pension after retirement and a lower family pension after his demise. This is totally disproportionate to the charge made. Hence this application.
8. Respondents have filed reply statement stating that, three complaints were received one after the other about an incident that took place on 14.05.2010 around closing time of the day in the cabin of Smt. Shakuntala, Sr. AO/FM {now retired) in different versions, One from Sri V. Ravinder, Sr. Accountant, on 17.05.2010 and the other two from Smt. A. Shakuntala and Smt. N.L.J. Rani, A.A.O. , omt. Shakuntala complained to the Deputy Accountant General A against Sri V. Ravinder having barged into her room without seeking permission and started shouting at Smt. N.LJ. Rani, who was present at that time in the former's room, ina very abusive and un-parliamentary language for about 15 minutes. Smt. Rani made a complaint against the applicant Sri Ravinder stating that he performs his duties taking her assistance but he suffers from behavioural problems, in addition to other things in her representation addressed to the Dy. Accountant General (Funds).
10. The Respondents further states that, the Dy. Accountant General (Admn) issued orders for conducting a preliminary inquiry. On conclusion of the preliminary inquiry, Sri Rajasekhar, DAG (Funds) recommended for a regular inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules with regard to the complaint made by Smt. A. Shakuntala. It is submitted that, based on the complaint made by Smt. Shakuntala the applicant Sri V. Ravinder was served with a charge sheet dated 25.10.2010 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
11. The Respondents further state that, an inquiry was conducted as per rules and Inquiry Offier, Smt.Lajwanti Thakore, A.O submitted the Inquiry report and held the charge as proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide 0.0 No.37, dated 06.09.2012 imposed the penalty of "withholding of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. During period of penalty he will not earn any increment (s) of pay. This will have the effect
->> La an a of postponing his future increm of pay". The appellate authority have upheld the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.
12. The Respondents further state that the contention of the applicant that he was denied reasonable opportunity of examining a defence witness in his support namely Sri J. C. Subba Rao, Sr. Account Officer Funds is not correct and hence denied. It is further averred in the reply statement that, the Appellate Authority has passed its order taking into consideration all the aspects of the case including the proportionality of the penalty with respect to the charge. With the forgoing submissions, the Respondents pray for dismissal of the OA.
13. In support of their contentions, the Respondents relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.K. Verma v. H.M.T. Ltd., & Anr, CA No.881 of 2006, decided on 31.01.2006.
14. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his contentions relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Uol & Ors [ 1995 (4) SCT 657].
15. We have heard Mr.K.Anantha Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.Vinod Kumar, learned Sr Central Govt., Standing Counsel for Respondents.
. ad abusive and unparliamentary language against superior officer Smt.NL Rani, Asst. AO who was present in the Cabin of Sr AO Smt. Shakuntala. Smt. Shakuntala made complaint against the applicant to the Dy. Accountant General (Accounts). This Tribunal cannot appreciate or are appreciate the evidence adduced during the departmental enquiry but this Tribunal has got the jurisdiction and duty bound to examine as to whether the conclusion, on the very basis of it is solely arbitrary and capricious and no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion. Smt. Shakuntala being examined as PW 2 was asked if she can describe the language used by the delinquent applicant and she answered that she cannot utter those words. Bing asked PW 2 said that the applicant has not used any abusive or unparliamentary language to her. She has also stated that the applicant has not talked to her in abusive manner. PW-3 Smt. Anjani Kumari has Stated that she does not remember the date of occurrence and does not exactly remember the incident. She has not stated any unparliamentary or abusive language used by the applicant. On the other hand she has categorically stated that the applicant has not used any filthy language against Smt.NU Rani and Smt. Shakuntala and the other persons present there. Smt.NU Rani being examined as PW 1 was asked whether the applicant had used any abusive language towards her and she has denied it. She has not uttered or whispered any unparliamentary language used by the applicant towards her. In fact she has denied using of filthy language by the applicant against anybody at the relevant time.
~ Sexaresstar :
17. Therefore it is ac € oti evidence by this Tribunal and the conclusion as arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently by the Appellate and Revisionary Authority could not have been arrived at by any man of ordinary prudence. Therefore this Tribunal finds that the finding as given against the applicant with regard to the charge made against him is wholly arbitrary and based on no evidence and therefore this Tribunal has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned punishment imposed against the applicant as per order bearing No.PAG(A&E)/CoC/DC-
2/8-329/2012-13/No.89, dated 21.03.2013 and order bearing No.PAG(A&E)/CoC/DCII/8-329/2012-13/TR-37, date 06.09.2012 are set aside.
18. Accordingly the applicant is entitled to consequential service and financial benefits. The O.A. is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
aT ie Pash Wa Ti ae oe pan On ae . > antral f Adsrinigivatiy conta eaprarass Hyderabad Bence