Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Akhlaque Ahmed vs M/O Communications on 30 April, 2019
CLMTLLTLLETOLLTLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ELL
oo
i OANG.219/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAT
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.219/2013
Date of Decision: 20april, 2029
CORAM: R. Vijaykumar, Member {A}
R.N. Singh, Member (5)
Shri Akhlaque Ahmed,
Age 87 years,
BEx-Junior Telecom Offic
Staff No.1is47 (Group B
M.T.NL., Mumbai
Residing at : B-1301/1302, Crystal Palace,
Opposite Powai Police Station,
Behind Ram Ashram, Ram Baug,;
}
-Powali, Murbai~4o0 O76,
.« Applicant.
(By Applicant Advocate: Shri A.I. Bhatkar ).
Versus,
i. Union of India, Through
The Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Communication and
information Technology,
Department of Télecommunication,
Sanchar Bhavan, 29, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110o01.
. The Member (Services)
x
Telecom Commission,
try of Communication and
Minis
Information Technology,
Department of Telecommunication,
Sanchar Bhavan; 20 Ashoka Road,
New BDelhi-iigoel.
OANG.229/2013
'The Chief General Manager,
3.
Ltd.
Nigam
YOHns
.
+
Mahanagar Telep
te
aN
Telephone #
BP (West)
g Daday
Mumbei~-400028 ,
Ma
¥.5.
~«» Raspondaents
Masurkar,
¥.8.
Khosla and Shri N.E. Rajpurehit ).
(Respondents by Advocate Shri
Shri P.
Reserved on
~492.03.2019.
0° Diy.2.09
Pronounced on
ORDER
Per:- R.N. Singh Member (7) the by Filed MS nerd £-4 85 z y ip the followin seeking i2 a ACT y unais Lb M Tv @ Lefsr-
rel n eve oy ond ee fad.
¢e q 4 a 43 o my my "4 mg "omg US a 4s sey EQ (43D & ay 33 43 oS wt tr GY 4x th ty ts Db sp RY O85. 84 St Sent 6 iad + Gg an Oy Bt ry Grob a ors ey CC Sy 3 . OANG.219/2033 otha Fhiss Hon'ble Tripbonal eidpi 2 graciously pleased to pass such roand further orders as deemed Fit i Ty te Oy Ty ew rat ob oy fe}. Gest of thie application be provided for."
2. The facts of the case as coéntendsd by the Applicant are that the applicant was appointed in service ef the Respondents as Phone inspector in Bombay Telephones on 04.09.1970, Thereafter, he was promeated as Junior Telecom LO73. ft is stated that-
Orficer in the year 1 after crossing the age of 45 years, he started suffering from diabetes and kidney stone problem as such he submitted an application dated O2.11,1992_ (Annexure A-2) requesting for his transfer under GM {E) which is near to Ais residence, a. On 22.01.1993 {Annexure A-3}, the Hill w.e.t., 25.01.1993, The relieving order dated €5.01.1993 {Annexure A-~4} is alsa issued accordingly. The applicant submitted an application dated 05.02.1993 {Annexure A-5}) with a request to consider his earlier an application dated 62.11.1992, regarding Khia request for ao OANG.218/2013 transfer and toe post him to GM {BE} as early as possible. It is stated that he was suffering from Diabetes, Hypertension and kidney problem &S such he requested for his transfer to GM {BE}, g a unit near to his residence as his health did mot permit him to resume duty at the office of GM {CM} at Malabar R4ill. Howaver, mo heed was paid te his request. The applicant right from 05.02.2199 Gd to Pebruary, 1995 kept requesting to all the authorities for revoking his transfer orders as his health condition' did nol permit him to travel from Powel to Malabar Hill. Ye is Stated that in February, 19395 he was confined to serious iliness. However, in February, 1997 he approached the office of cM (CM) to resume his duty and at that time he came ta know that this anit became non-existent. Thereatter, he approached the unit of AEG (Powai} and visited several officers about Ris joining but there was nO positive responses from the respondents. Finally, in October, 1998 he decided to take voluntary retirement from service and submitted his request dated 05.10.1998 {Annexure A-~6} to "
GOLLLOTOT '5 OANo.219/2013 GM. {Admn.} through AEJ (Powai}. In response to this he received letter dated 20.04.1999 (Annexure A~7?) from AGM (T}) directing him to jein duty at the office of GM. (CM).
0 it Ls stated that vide letter dated 28.08.1999 (Annexure A-8) the applicant informed the AGM ({(T) that he wanted to resume duty but could not trace out the unit of GM {CM) and requested for supply of complete address of the unit to resume duty. Thereafter, he received letter dated 17.09.1999 (Annexure A-9) to report at the office of GM (Admn.} to know the present situation of the' office of GM (CM). 'he applicant submitted a letter dated 30.03.2000 {Annexure A-10} to the GM {Admn.) to supply him the complete address to the wnit so that he may » Jn response to Q be able to resume his dutie this he received a letter dated 25.04.2000 {Annexure A-11} informing him that the post of GM (CM) did. not exist and was directed to Join with GM (Trans.). Thereafter, he approached the G ffice of. GM (iTrans.} on 22.05.2000 hut was asked to wait and was not allowed to resume his duties BS such he wrote a Letter dated 6 OANG.239/3013 16.06.2600 to GM [3 informing all the facts. Again on 47.08.2000 (Annexure A-13} he sent another letter to GM (Adman.} that he reported to the office of GM (Trans.} to resume duty but he was mot allowed to join his duties. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 06,10.2000 (Annexure A-14) to GM IT} sending therewith all related papers for taki regard to take him back in his unit for taking Becessary action regarding reqularization o£ Service and voluntary retirement of the applicant. The applicant did not receive any information for reporting hence, he wrote a letter dated 23.11.2000 {Annexure A-15} toa the Finally, in response to the letter dated 12.42.2000, he resumed his duties. on 22.12.2006, 02.01.2001, O8.0L. 2001, LL.0L 2062 and 18.01.2001. Ft is etated that thereafter he received a letter dated 19.01.2001 {Annexure A> iv} mentioning that he resumed duties on 22.12.2000 and alsa asked te explain why Gisciplinary actian should not be initiated against him.
LE @ ef OANO,219/2013
5. It is further stated that vide latter dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure A-19) the applicant informed the DE (IT), .MINL that he was sick during the period 25.1.1993 te 04.10.1998 and on being fit from 05.10.1998 to resume duties, he was unable to Locate the office Of GM {OM}. It is also stated that the respondents themselves admittbed that the post of GM {CM} was abolished eye pet aS such ke could net resume his duties. He has also written a letter dated 29.01.2001. ('Annexure A-20} to GM (IT) for sanctioning of medical teave enclosing all the medical certificates issued by the Dactor, Thereafter, several correspondences. were made between the applicant 5 and the respondents with regards ta his x transfer, medical leave, and for its regularization ete.
6. " Binally, a charge-sheet dated 19.04.2002 (Annexpre A-37) was issued to the applicant with the following charges:-
3 DY " No, DOC/ GOS 986 f 2007-2002"
i. The undersigned proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri Akhlagque Ahmed, Junier Pelecam Officer, Stafr No, - OANG.219/2013 ~\ © : . ' GD @& th by Ki Ye @ a3 84 sm Be a om Kp ke og AES eo 8 Be ee oe Ss aa ge a . ; ; f mgs a ; 1S :
Soe ego 8b oo a Oe OG ot "a 8 Ce ns & , at s as my coe aos o ry SEE S Ee Yh i g ER 4 8 . Be Ay 4g dG a HU g woo B Bae QD. 2 4s bd, 4) ; £ eee ic ved ted g o ' .
SH Oe PAOD gy mY gy 4 og 2 wy 2 ay my BR oe :
c Ry Ge werk oy Go & Bg 4 2 Be og on rf > rw an 3 a2 3 BOS # bs PP ep ag et BS ogy 'Bort g ee Be Ey eg wD eBeUB OS FAT Woe Gay gf sR MO goa ® Ms &, % jm & a Bo a & wo Boog og ty ere Fe 1 fai & wig Ad a Ho 43 oF wy OE SS 5 ae qa Ye a. D442, Bo & n a at ES ME tA a a 3 ae) . $ 20d tp, Cs 5 i hy gore G oq @ Gy ae eb gt rep Be a, Moon t by na KD ey : ZB . % 5 iy B Sid ao J poe & ee Set OO yo ge D B . ty Sea re :
i es % ee Ry 2 Borge sg Bo g a Oo BS my oO @ oy 5 Ly ve OS ep fa ret 40 oO % " s 3 oe a ny ae is Be bd * ' Te ting 4 ' an My we eg OY 3 ef co St Vat ny Seog fe ~ geo mt og 7 uy 5 Gt She st be hy Be A me oN be "4, fo r a ind wom 0.33 Og ed hg Ags 4 Seg ma HR Bin > wey RR % kt po B ms en os g BS D oy w vay Lge io OY qe BR op wy gp A oS i BMP oy te aa tt i a oy pe odd one mF gs a, OH, ® &s vi in ey ip. & % 4.3 g i be ¥ L cad oN e 44 cs 0 vd KE £. &y Bs r 4 eRe ey Ey +.B f ot gb gh "4 a ny (5 % % oj to a iG Be og eo a ge 2 8 Beta ae ong ae tt EB a a oe ug fom SEG gy a oS Oe EB os Boke aa ce ie 3 cy ws 7 Be & OR "oR BBS Seg ous ty fy ONS og Boa Ut x es rs! at é. 33 es "gt es mh W423 G eas eC i te Qa wb 4 im Bg & fay BOOS " os Say Hog ge of tb boy i oo og eq a © os ae) Cg Re GN oy 8 ie be ag ry Meo 4 HOS a 3 od £3, o 5 ng Ue f : 3 ME =e qy > Song be OUR ty a D oO Day oS 6 ep ag ig & a g wee Bag 42 6 AL Me iS wo # m ef 4a g 2G hy 4 Bo 87 9 ais , oT ye OBO Bw HAR i OG orh co ee 3 om 7S Boy RA . i ~ fs 3 yy uy a = oD B Tao at fe Ge 8 ties B gg @ % 3g i op & SOB as a 2 SI ED . ? a Ty cee op i thet. SS bo Ae i ; oy , as i ?
GMs ba Cen Re age ERs ees eR O93 an ee a v oon ag sé g# 9 & 3 Th ae al y % 4) Cun ey ag S os So ay 4 Sow Boo ok Mos E Ae 8 LS LS ses yo oO ty Bus ab om OD Op @ i rp ad ay 1b 8 & 4 6 Bae Eh Be 2 G ie a BQ OB Bg tbe ee ee + At oe ae "4 @ webs Q Bs he BE SE eG "eRe th ong ay e ' 3 Cy at Fe ved Oo A eG GR B® ow Oy Ey BE UT ay 6g AS mS AQ a Sy g OANO.219/2013 whieh mo Government Servant shall bring mpt te bring, anv political sbabtididicante influence to bear woos authority te further an reepect of fate Se te cy &3.
hee orb ~ oR RD be, Te cr Ear & "person in respect : . matter dealt with in these proceed : if will be presumed that Shri Akhlagu sta Abmed, Jurnier Telecom officer, No, 22849, MINL., Mumbai is aware Gf} 6 uch @ representation anc that it 4b e CC an made at Bis Instance and act N\ will be taken against him for viol i of Rode 26 of the C&S {Conduct} Ru a Memorandum shall (i.C. Srivestave) CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MENL, MUMBRAT ri Akhlegue Ahmed Junior Telberem Officer, StafY No. 11547 (Phrough General Manager {iTj*
7. The applicant submitted his reply deted 04.06.2002 {Annexure A-38} against the SO, charges levied against him. The applicant alse received brief dated 18.06.2602 {Annexure A-40} We tiddededectdeces from the Presenting Officer and submitted his brief on 14.08.2003 (Annexure A~4l}). It is stated that the applicant has received Enquiry ' Repert urnidexr Memorandurn dated OG. 03.2004 A AAAE ATUL AEE DOPED ELE EDU EER EDE SIME EEE eC oh Pannen we OAN0.219/2013 10 iry » =e with the Enou yreeing 3 disa } A-42 SULTS * {Anne f2004-Vig.t Serious = wy at iy <G~ A my my red bd MY ony 4 +d py hy 8 Oo Sh Gy
43. pg Alon Qe 7 i OAN0.219/2013 be held es-parte by the Disciplinary Authority.
t The receipt of bAits Memorandum shall Be acknowledged by Shri Aka laque Ahmed, ITO, 86. Na. lise?, MPNL, Mumbad.
(A.K, SAXENA) NEMBER (SERVICES) > PELECOM COMMISSION Shri Akhalagque Ahmed ~ GPO, BE. Ne, LIsd? MINT ' Momba i?
g. Thereafter, the applicant has submitted a representation dated 15.10.2004 (Annexure K-43) in reply to the Memorandum dated 06.99.2004 stating therein that the Enquiry Officer hag not held him guilty of the charges ef absent without prior intimation, permission RH or sanction of leave and requested to drop the charges framed against the applicant. ft is stated that thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed en order dated 18.61.2605 (Annexure A-44) imposing the penalty of removal aks » from service upon the applicant which reads as £2 WNa. B- 113 22004-Vig Government c Mindstry of Communications & Infermation Technology Depa xrkient oF, weg ammun dca tions ; Z OSNo.233/2013 a2 fe Ly ay oe 3 RON shy oe oe by Gey i SS tel aD ey By os ~ > £3 ny sac Mamba WAS ay naps ce Ve CH.
ba & woth Rea) we, SD
a)
--
fe .
be ~t "3 eo Th 4 ved er RY hy eg ONS eas o Sry ee os ai i 4 oot OR gon, Li fay Tay i "eg Sy AO.
oy Yeey ae fy og TH oN wm 43 ot Oy ey 3 tong th r= vo A I~ Sy ing ms eg we ' 38 nN ay they G Ma S oS sep ose fy ky ne g Sysr4 KG H ' ~~ wy hy ors @ * is tet g oo 7 39 a fo Cr OS yoy OG mt D Bey ry bean has (IL) » Pe « MGM a it {G Bay HY DB Ago rey My hy s oe cs) "tt y 32 wy db ty 4x ry. SS ong "rd OS, & 3 S a ou Sa a 6 o wt Sag Bod ood Seog og i By arg" 44 ER ks gw id a eh < 9 4% oS 5 8 SH Eng:
2i ee & d * ae abs violated «: ky 440 Oh Sot RE AS oe ue "ts & tet G Bod 3 & "4 oS ag Ge.
YE ont ye my "4 sg wy rte kg Oh ef &y as my thy 8 & Seog % ®B B oe rhs at se Ba. 4g ina@smaoh Riscanavor 2 be ay ia mH "Ey Eth & 44 Oy hd Cy tg Be or Ba oy Y ty 3 < é oMml oy > aevetion. te urnbec e 63 reg not ey or at rend 33 OANO.219/2013 prior intimation, permission Ox sanction of leave for the said periad ty by fhe Bisoiplinary Authority disagrees with the I.0.'s raport te the Foliowing extent s= "AS per the records, it is clear that the Charged citiner remained absent without permission For prelonged pericad deliberately aia dater on avoided to perform the duty on one pretext. o the ether which is a seriou gmiscendgecte ."
fien wih Circle considered his ion and found that fae cnarges levelled an the CO, Authority, ane records case and oon an objective é of the facts and nees oF the case in its fe AK. Chaturvedi, Adviser feliacom Conmission Com , hereby impose the penalty of "Removal from. service" with immediate effect en Shri Akhalaque Ahmed, JTO, St. No .lisd?, MINE, Mumbai.
The reesipt of this Order shali be acknowledged by Shei Akhalaque Ahaneel WTO, St Ne, LiS4? » MINE, Shri Abhalagque Ahmed, Po 4 eed oP fs Bao}, Ae > MINE.
Murai. % wo _ OANo.219/2013
9. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 16.03.2005 (Annexure A-45} followed by reminder dated 15.04.2006 (Annexrre A-46). In response to the aforesaid the applicant received an order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure A-47) from » whe Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal filed by hin ay 4 wo x
10. The applicant has taken six grounds in the presen rt GA. The applicant strongly placed reilance on the ground 5.6 wherein it has been stated that the Disciplinary Authority accepted the advice of the UupPse and awarded the penalty.
However, the UPBSC has not been able to pein ont io] how the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which are based on the various communications between the applicant and the respondents from 1992 till the date of issue of the charge~sheet, are nat proper. Even the UPSC has not been able te hold that the absence of the applicant was wilful.
Moreover, the copy of UPSC advice was nat given to the applicant hefore passing of the final order by the Disciplinary Authority. The | applicant has also placed reliance on the | gudgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ib cy hy th tf oO rh ~ ay decmeaaectgearatoabt tts COM: tirecavErenriedtedt dite is OANG.219/9013 Union of India & Others vs. S§.K.° Kapoor reported im 2011 {1} SCC (L&S}) 725 wherein it has been held that the copy of the advice of the upsc must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned so that he may have an opportunity to rebuttal. tt ig stated by the applicant that copy of the advice of the UPSC has been given te the applicant along with the copy of the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 which is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
" > Hence this oO".
ii. On behalf of the apolicant the learned counsel has contended that the entire gratuity has been withheld by passing the imougned order and the same is contrary to the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and- also in view x of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court ® in D.V. Kapoor's case wherein the Hon'bl ApEn Court hag ruiesed as under:-
Rule @ of the rules empowers the President only te with-held or withdraw pension Sermanentiy or for a specifiad peried in whole or ih part er te ardaer becovery Of pecuniary Joss caused to tee State in whole or in pert subject to minimum. The employee's right te pension £ ght. The RBA Suces "Z be corr the gra wl s, ewer dls is OANG.219/2013 OCCOPOCULLULTELL COLI DE iii nnommnponnenenmmmnnmnnpitbd tb bees ia eee irregularity as it of Yends the right tea assistance at the evening of his Life as assured under Art. 22 oF the Soenstiturian, The impugned order discloses thet the President withheld rm eh permanent basis the payment of : 3 he hnmcetnoooncoecnetcicdiods gratuity ain addition to pension. The fight to gratuity is also ¢ statutory rig? idan har wea bh R Ae he . 5 ote under which, the President is enpowersd fe withhold gratuity as well, after his retirement as a measure. oF PUBLSARENT. A therefore, the order' fo withhold the \ gratuity a8 a measure ef penalty is of ebviougly illegal and ois cdeveid of Jurisdiction,
12. The learned counsel for the applicant has alse argued that the disagreement note vide Memorandum dated 25.1 a »2O14 {An annexure A~15) the disciplinary authority has given the disagreement note however, the same is nothing but & mere formality inasmuch as in the said . . , ; : SR Memorandum the Dise iplinary Authority has © eoncluded that the charges against the' applicant Of oH wr % iD oe co fare Mead 1 oy he = iD at Lat ih x 2 bt cs pet rte © feck io WD BS ce b jo tow few f< D. rad ct (e3) Sanction of leave Stand proved and the same is bad in view o the gudgment of Full Bench of this Tribunal in. Raja Ram (supra} wherein the Moy Im} o i, ts : >? oe «. he issue Defors us gn thea instant S . ea ot gE ay C#Se 18 .Kxegarding «fa nature ef the % <4 Ss mt a ret pty ay :
3 aM pe ® @ Q's tho G .
g NS Sg eee ua sia ss e m4 a BS ua on 6g" i @ hoo a "4 a oo Mh oa « @RESRSE * wy hd 42 Pa BO Dy te rep py as =s UR & 0 fe @ sg "Bech Sas ves ghan gH 8 % wi $6 0 a OO ag ep ou2 8 gras 4a w G@ BRO ae Boa mio Ao a % 8 © Boa 4a Go 85,84 + Oo 6 BH Y bes, # 3s 2 Pau 9 Gagan 6 es gS Fe ao p24 OW Wo ja SHB ° ph PSB BSS Ba SRSSS ek See a! om mt bg aXe %ygt Bf Bo ne eee eB wa a 23 ao Les ag 0 BY Q Be % Poy ey 3 BM ay fe Ee te wont BG TT oy 4 ote GB a & gh oy Bey oy 8 8 8 Bw a x me g oan 2 OS : 4 ' naar B8y Soeges see kys Bao lS ges ge DESY PCa aE. s 88. f 2 oh we SE a , ay hp HOM em 9% 4 BS & Gg B sy Goch pe os oom mas DOR mM ac mea Ge OB ig m4 fay gy BG Sm Bak © % Suu Re oa eS on ts », we 2 a ea eo 6 2 me 4 8 Ry @ O bem 5 2 Ge hk ee oa pg 2 3 on BO Be REE eee ev » sar? a} ehBueeee % eee ERE YS Ge ai B a GB aoe og wm « j ns 'SZ : gy bs wy i SAR OS ata y et ss 1 4s on Sg OB ss 3 re z 4 " Soy 4 = 2 & hy i & ug, oh ESSERE Geass Bt g Ha gs aga 88 BE .eo a 3 2k 'Bb ga eS a § 2 uo wk g 8 sy Geo 4 Oot Meng, OE tet a a BOE 4 tom ced G ty he a Aa oe e . aH 2 2S oe 4 oy & ton 69% G5 Be G & & A Goes RS ie ae ore! "th an be aD my 2 § GB do HOE BA b gag Bes SSR es (S88 By BES B EERSTE CSREES ee be oer rate a6 rt ¢ R @ 3 3D a Ber ay & Bw & Se De trl oy aR BS bo vs Sag es tt HEok ove 5 8 Me BB Fy 2 4 Pee yS Bet BR ons oo 8 eae x Be, PE Baw 2 @ 4s & & & 1 & 6 Bs Q wh ge . of ron a bey hy th os 43 thn AQ ved a gy a ten fe ba , ob ad 4 Stee a s St e a g > "4 Bg rey a ue "ei A , s ag 3 wa Bey o 2, & : 13. ue fo AE zB S tr TU gs tof e 9 5 # ae sot Bh to 7 cs GE go oo og oe Se a z= tm So oe of a) Som foe * (oe BR TES tS Qty u ah Se 2 "4 #3 o oe qe wa mo fe g s 4% 4 2 4 gi Hoax B a G i © Py 44 7 iy ct fc SSao8hu esa 2" ou 8 ot G & 2 4 Ge fa g _ * Q 4 cog Bo @ : 4 4 A tO a Bat a Oe mee 2 oe Be Poot Bey fa mt ou, 2 soo SS Bow 2 go 8 Boo HS 3.8 by, 22S am @ Ue yg Pa ge ym on eo g "
ghan US a Sela eg 8 "ta a Bos, B Sy Fa PRS Beg we Bey Oy os oS "Sy ep ga ¢2 a a ee Q BP & e Ss om Dy, @ B&O 4B Hy gue oo & q@ MB Pa ee oe B 4] - Bs S35 wT Gk c 5 " SG oe ® 4 69 ed 4 4 & o a H beg 4 a s, by 'ad iad 9 & * Ay is Pbeaus oh g 1 : & 5 ina ta we go wy SE RS 5 a Td & Seeug eu gs ce th Oe BB Seoeve ay aoe Bay SS a8 @ a Boa a o are 4 & % a wee eee ge eee RR BSE Hon 2 8 yh § 2G 3 §Ho sean ~ ng gh he oo segs ease, gghbeees gate ge faa GA 8 a oy BP Bas sje ergs Bob |G. J Pa et SS ? i ' FP iq &S a oy BS oe Te ae OG { 4 f Wo} th wy Hs a 8 de mR : Ry CO 4a A a a ' a e 6, o Be 2 dong fp aa G5 i 8 a pe o, By thy 3B Me - a Bose s eo 7 a ong , wots Bom fe & Ne 43 ni 9 44s St ny 8 Op ark hy a DO Satin Bag wo acd @ gt +t Be @ 26 ca in 35 ~ & ty Ey & a Ad Ppt - poy 4 4 % ab oa AS ef ty AD wy DQ tet "3 ', :
« > {7 saoniceistase S G Mis a ch th Sd reunds, LRELY ?OANG219/2013
or mandgtes Hiscip ing through the 3 portunity to the or y the og ¥.24
Of "
af x Hore + > 130 be OD an then moved harged ey fnquiry Authorit rev may re a o a 3 oie apport.
a 3 eed ae 7 a y Sules: prov lag giv.
sae 38 OANG.219/2033is b rei 6 6fentetive if gt states charges against the Charge:
stand proved. Mere axpressi view would males the disagreement bad in law and be quashed and set aside. The is thus answered, The 0,4. is te the oR."
13. The learned counsel for the applicant has also conterded that the alleged absence from aduty was not wilful and therefore the same \Y " Cannot be construed as miscohduct and in this regard he has relied upon the Judgment £ Hon' ble Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar ¥S. sad % Union of Indian § Another, reported in (20212) wm oc 178. The para~1l4 whereof reads as under:-
"id. Rule 3/1) {ii} and Rule 3Y¢1) f44ia) af fentral Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 9684, relates to all time maintaining integrity, devotion to daby and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant and reads as Foilaws:
"Rule 3 - General.
i} Every Government servant shall at {i} maintain absolute integrity; {Zi} maintain devotion te dutys and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of net e Sas wo
-
z .@ Governmen
40. In the present case the inguis Office On appreciation of aviden though heid that the. appellant wm 5 bs m bags ER VES unauthorisedly absent From duty bur Failed te hold the eheence is wilful;
the Disciplinary Autherity as alse the Aprelliate authori ty, Failed to ' appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty.
20 OANO.219/209325, in the result, the appeals is al lowed, The Jagucned orders or dianissal Passed aN Disciplinary Arthority, affirwec Dy the Appellate Authority; Central Administrative PriOunal and Wieh Court 4ra set aside, fhe appellant stands reinstated. Taking inte consideration the Face that the Charged Officer has suffered a 40k = uy was drawn in @uty for a certein AGL. Temitting the A : nary view the ta ry th .
kts yo 7 bime we Qirect! thet the 'appellan paid S08 of the back Wages bor there & £2 costs. *
14. COpposing the claim ef the applicant, the respondent neos.i and 2 have filed Joint reply whereas respondent No.3 has filed reply Separately stating therein that the applicant has challenged the order dsted 31.05.2019 vide which penalty of forfeiture of 50% of monthiy pension on permanent basis and entire gratuity admissible to him, The Disej iplinary Authority bh 5 S passed the order dated 31.95.7010 by following the rules and prescribed procedure en the subject, and there is no violation of any rule. The disciplinary proceedings were 2 is initiated under Rule 9 of CS (Pansicn} Rules, 4 i i972 and suitable penalty has been imposed by the competent Disciplinary Authority, after seeking statutory advise of the wupse, it is } i :
i t GOEL e ai OANG.215/2073 3 Stated that UPSC is an advisory body and their f advice had been sought in the case in accordance with the requirement of consultation with them as laid down in Article 320 (3) (e) of the constitution read with reguiation §{1} of the UPSC ({Bxemoticon from Consultation) Regulations, 2958. The Commission's advice is not binding upon the Disciplinary Authority, who arrives at its own conclusions after taking inte consideration the advice of the commission. The advice of 203 aed hh has been forwarded on the UPSC dated 09.0 to the applicant along with penalty order dated 31.05.2012. Tt is further contended that the applicant seeks 'indulgence of this Tribunal to reassess the evidences on record and come to a conclusion, different that what the competent athority has decided and the game is not within the scepe or power. of judicial review ef this Tribunal. The OA is devoid of any ('merit and deserves to be Si h & missed with cost. The learned sounsel for the respondents has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.c.
o Others OANG.219/2013 & ef India Onion ¥S..
Chaturvedi Witte, &y Bs u MW OE in a ee nb oy i. . 4 G SeSRRERRELMASYB BME Ho eM oOeysuHEennond © onl ; a MS 8) OW Bobs ag aa og BOO GO 4a sg ' a ov oge SH yHkG Pe Pons sua" SELIM ER eer Bae oss & tt my "4 7 t mr we o o r i 'go BS Go gee as "AB Su Sey SS ego a ay o he Oe er ag Sy i Ry oy oS Sey sed ns " Oe mS OM et Ho 4 Q, fy TRE OT , bps my yy wt oO eS ge OSS "4 Pome Baas k Bea Bebo Ban g , 4s Gehan e ows oo "GRR RSG OM Ree Rs SRB oy ie Ok 4 ty 2s ay cr 3 ay te ey oe ay, ae he Sy RY a 4 5 < 4 om mg te a Ae ws "f so 3 & iG rG) Hi Be go, SSS Fegeo Saksges FG, 8 eu % 88 6 ng Te OY Geyed Sas go 2 ss Beye ge RE oe Ge Og 3 GB eo gS a 2 BR" ee Beye BAS] FR kw a FG ay BRA aR gy Bs by 1 Re : OS Seo, Ba Mow eg % Bo seg TS, goog a © oO BS OM ase ®. Ee B07 33 poe" 2 Ss GU, a Rm Ba Y ® BE? ' yy Be Ro Ae SA QW Seugy betrt $4 * AD tog Be ES Gy pope ES BE LY tog Me Day Gr OD a ee BSBA PR ae 6G FESR oy See aes OO on Ey ee . Seg hy oe Fe 4 aye ag af OES. i --_ a "pega e eS Ge bs gato Beas BE ng OR uy ke "a mY ge ss ms i Sh ry SS ky ny c+] 4a GB 4 & te ht a eu gt oS 43 Et. i ® ¢ Bey ge i Gy ep kb or Se" gs Rg ted ord @ iy te G LG BD wy ah des BG 7 ay @ G bob 4 Ri, 3 % g © Toe See TU 2 5 8 mG Bod we ag mi i %& fy 8g set yy sg Fy ag % Mm sp ag 7 a @ 43 1 iG me gs oh iD '- os o Aad iota ig th ay a 4 @ % s 5 cts oN woo a a * S % 4 o na Pe: a a " g i g Be ee WoO Sby me 6 Ee wy Bing & B a Me BOT Gg By BM % GBH a G Bey BY gobo ao 4M 4 jot ped "yw, orf ee aa 4 nt 7 ld a O° "se 7 4 BHO gag og ew oe Bo"
Ord eh es png 14 as st BR gy pe om a By ty GEE ae tS ay OG BSG gRe gs" goes i Bae Roe @ OO Oe As no 8 Mw other BO wy ~ 9 Oy RO en Ae mo Me Bh Sort a OF Bs rE gy tn Bs a SReo4 Ge adhe eo bBS 6 fe DEC RBH ABA AN 2 oS Be 3 SE 5a yy BRE SEEPS AEP ER eT e see esa ee a
7 : si BE = , 2 TG PAS Rt TRS Md Se 53 % RP ts S SS om hy se bye Oy sD 4g BB hs . £ Say aad ogo St "
Se SRR ES ESE PS eee bese sea BASES gaa R EUS : 4 sy Eig any ~ YS : , ae) hf Sad a BE Tek ry heft HEE God SG Outen eh ooads CSHGRSR ESAS {supra}, under :-
LOTTE 9 a3 OAN.719/2013 wake it appropriate te the ¥feote of each case,"
iS. in the Rejoinder, the applicant has reiterated the avermente made in the oA and Genied the contentions made in the Counter-
reply.
16. Learned counsels for respondent nos.i to 3 have aiso filed Sur-Rejoinder reiterating the contentions tose in their earlier 'replies
-
filed by them.
17. We have gone through the O.A. along with Annexures A-i to A-51, Reply of the respondent nos.l to 3, Rejoindér of the apolicant alang and Sur-rejoinders filed on behalf of the respondent nos.i to 3, 28, We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsels for the respondents and carefully considered the facts and circumstances, Law points and rival contentions in the case, Findings 19, : The facts of the case are not disputed » The advice of the UPSc {8 by elther of the partie 24 GANG.219/3013 on the basis of which, the punishment to the applicant WAS awarded was not communicated LO the applicant prior to passing of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied uban the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Unien of India and ethers Vs. S. Kk. Kapoor wfeported in 2011 (4) eee 589 wherein the cases of &, N. Narula Vs. Union (of India and Others reported in 2011 (4) scc 591 and Union of India & Ors. Ve. TV. Pate?
reported in (2007) 4 sec 785 have been
20. Naw _ the issue which requires determination is whether the UPSC advice is required . be served upon the delinquent employee before passing the order of penaity or nok mare partical arly when it is also pointed copy thereof, was not supplied to the applicant before passing the impugned punishment order.
2i. According to the proposition of law as laid down im the case of Union of India and 3 ethers Vs. §.K. Kapoor {Supra} and in the Case sacccanvernvereoee teeta: ts: : AA :, LLL 3S OAND.219/2013 of S.N. Narula Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), a copy of advice rendered by the upset iS required to he made available to the delinguent officer in order to give him proper opportunity before passing the final punishment order. Undisputedly, the copy of the WPSC advice which Was relied cupon by the authority concerned, as mentioned in the im ipugned order itself was not supplied to the applicant before assing the punishment order, & g
22. In accordance with law settled on the point by the Hon'ble Apex Court, te supply a copy of UPSC advice is a condition precedent.
23. In the case of Uniden ef India and ethers Vs. §.K. Kapoor {supra}, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"8S. There may he a case where the rapert of the Union Poblic Service Commission is uot relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that case, it is cartainly not "es ' vy a copy of the sama to the emplocvese concemed, However, if it is cepy of the same must bé oS + Neal G 'a xf ~ ct ig zs 0B.3
lied ain advance to the employee "ZB "2
wy g a SOME :
a 8 3 : < Bo S gq 2 oO ery a x 5% g * v Seg map 8 . .
: is) oy GG a oy 3S ' s Q ct a Oe of & mM t © ¢ " = Nae + RBS ey 4 ' ;
cs 3 Kat . wok & S RE ey oy OY. a ® hy gy my Ro aa meg Sagas a 9 % & t : : : = > 5 i 4 sof es #8 oe BS oo & 2.2 4 8 , wi * wk 4 a bo OM Ww Rio , 2H Ow tt O- a Se? ge Ga 4 By UBS Ba ard ° Pog gS aRae fas gtasana y § 8 2 g g o ¢ Bw o og a cag "6 Eg oo ft nO mde meg 6 rf cs = m te SE Rue od' as Bo Eo 8 oA oS ae 4 Gy mer oy a BG & a 8 & Oy g se "3 5 § & rey Sth BR 23 Bod ' ego ge Ut od gc Be c eg se rs s Bi ensaae x Gap ay (ye BB a Bo oO os Sa Ge 5S 8 % oe be oaks e Bm CU ae : tt od 3 gS 2 2 ty a 433 QB % wn oO m oo ®% 4 g 2 ES gy oe Ha Se 8 8 gs hk a ® ? 2 a we A . Bo 4 ' i OR Te Bo B°p8 By 8 aes GB HS "wo OU q @ + » 2 oh a © a o Be Go e & iS % a os ¢ ee] : wo aS {3} ee ha ey % tS risa fi | * wm Oo au as os goo w "fat g to se % G 8 Cw 2 "fh a & 45 i uy g NG es 4 a ah B oa a Ok seg Nee oa ms o y ve * now e & fe is » & mS Woy RE Br ty re y @ ' er a i ae, Pees ° ' 4 @ oH 5 Boa w Oo Fe a hy at ga 4 2 oe 4 & rm Ky m Ot 3 aH yd & s 8 at as Q, bd og qs gage og gags 28 Bes 5 8 8 & & 8 Gt =o Bo oa eo 3 - Ye ob" 8, © a o © Bh os 8 Bot ye 3 eae" BEA Ho Fd a He G4 rae 4 c yy wy yb ms es B and Ns 4 th w to & Goh a Ed OG ty rt BS gee GE B "4 43 S gi = Oe # at ES at 2 & © oy SEG ay ;
eb Be 8 FS ey i SE Be & Ea 8 ye Boo . 8 a gb See assent s re eee te ° BS ne m w . Mo fa Ge 3 ey rot @ a a Me a 43 go. af ong He we "3 * of iB eG oo, e Hh Qh o B ht ha mS ogi tt Be aR i, x 5 2} ei bid fh < Se RD bod 2, Gm ay cs * ae ot toe aa %, 4 tC ors i Q Bae DLS eg © Bo eon Be ga 8 Beg ® Om 8 3 au 4 »y» on & mo ue fy ny a + g Oo 5 tq B ao as S a a ie we Ps te ts gf 9 oS ; 7 4 " ad x a 7 7 4 4 cy oN a Hot Gm + Saek Sees y go > Go | . ' A A eo wo ¢ : ; ed "
oe w 2 sok 6g oe aoa 8 fg i ® Oy Oo Go mo © - a a *y GS 6 Ed ss "3 y ve} a . " " CG S
- : Sr on} a a 2 8 9 wt tye Sg © » Vv, 14 5 q 0 at 4 i gs wt rf ei et a OF e vod "is ex EY $3 te 2 7 i a "ye can foe ON Baw GO G8 Bw gw 4 - @ m. ne ' ef oor Gea ey f mH oa ham ob eb 4 os 2688.3 eae 8 'i 2 ue Go ty 2 mM BS 3 uh ae Ee sed 3) Bot 4s 0 8 SE re ed G aoe 3° 3 pm Oo ce ro 4 "4 ree ~ ae . "4 "E , hy wg RS i ay o % & Ae 2 ro Be o mT ug 3b ore a kG ory ay ay. 84 we olor Oo vw, ED ws 4, mY a Me t "@ i bole tS g Fo gy OT by Uy Gwe eG a ted ge " 47 zz «© 4g no ®& $23 eR Me DSB 3 g 8 Ow NO eo g mg & 3 Oy wed mm ' cmon a 3 ao oy mH Dm BO AS oa Ne es wy oe = by @ ei in i & o taal oy ® ¢ Ke 4s 4 a a 8 y Hy 1 % ig ie % ie ie i Ey & iy 5 8} Peg SAH 2g 8 8 SB BS BROR 3 os hog DN WR og GR Bg e oo @oy Son WG gy oo 2 OF a § = ef bu gi nh 2° @ KP Soo FC a wags Boe A o 2 3 fo Pat fo 'mn 44 ue : f 4a 2S o Of vt 4 GB. Me a 4 Boy 5 oS on g & mB wy Bt hag rd " a Ow 4 oR ge 2 ha, a & WR B&D as (eae 3 Ff gi ~S8 €0 = me co wo o % ne 8 sie Ue 2, By a ty mo BL oa ry "A = Bo OS ° a mn ne m4 'oC ® Ay SS ad by fy te oy ® b & mt Ry om %e of 3 fe x TS Cog me Tg 8 9 So eg HPs Leon 8 A = B 4 & Bo 8 Boo & . 7 a & "4 ow "re Gy ' = ~ © het a ay lobes Xe AK "od & Ba) ios ios mS fos we @ Tg Bc i ie ey Ho # OG ce Sean BS wk oe," 36 ve Bee. 8 8,878 3.8 825 *be 8 oS e 4 J g 5 ¢ 3 7m . wt 2 DD te -- * by on "sd * Lad ~ Sr G8 S CP RP ao SF ew 8 Heo eS Ss ° aX Pas teh eaak omg No nO a geome OG > Bert "4 omg cm og wt HY om ra Sm ey oF a "et 4 ne Shy . ting Hg TOE ny ME dd oR B ie we A gs By oo Fes . fy . " f a Poon eB HR Rs om Be a OR m Gob me Q BS Wy B yy om Wot Bay OM ot om & fy Be Og a ng . ~% 2S By & in "ted og pom a A em Got Be Noe wu © 3 ay FA oy Be Do py a = in mE ef ae Ab ae oS me = ey fe. 43. CO c ™ . 5 5x S GA®, § os BS ,Us A eee ee oe . age ¢ ~° 2S oa ww & s v © ( 'ad ved mr 3 Lg . < a + OF & 2 4 q x 7 s eH a Ris 3 ® ge a4 mo & 8 a9 nm OM 8 Pa EOS a m Ses & uy ns TB fg GB ee oe eB + ge BM al mE ee we Hoop ce "8 a 8 See gg ert & 84 Saba" gs BREE 8a & e S hy ss a & Og hy 2B & a By mt a Cow go SS hes} Borg & 4a s ns a @ a os ree 65 9 8 Guo , 2° BV as Oo £8 Tho ey Hog w 8 £ @ as S30 & ies oe BP Eg iy Boe 5B Oe NE Moet eo Gog & oO 8 BeBe. BAZ * 2 2 me, 7 ong ff q eRe ew 4 4 te . " PEeS SR B BER SSS EAS Se sa sygses x Z 3 Ow se me ae Pi ty HOE mo Et Om G GS By © & a G Bo & er a ny &
- 20% OO DO % Se 6 Be ® 6 44 & 1 ; * = HAE OG oa ONS Ow o in my =e 2 Bm oe DO @ @ ag OO StS GO me 4a <Rd. rf . é ae COO BOM Oh eo Oo OE HO DO oO ee oN a \ Se a @ UME:OANG.219/2013 28
& India or hed "rf ay » ® wy anf must be = opy g 8 'he, % cy cy nr 2 3 o we my tt @ may 3 Godten SAS t the where eS ~ a.
eas Pr ong Same cany of the iva IOP ~~ wank es bo a #oessarv 4 at the £ ar copy & 220 th wat "rd 42 "rd a iS 4 a he is n 3 ommissioy 2 e the a3 be x we Casas inf it ded nad decided been as SS At seo} lok ae ay an 4a oe ° ay be adapte ¢ oa 5 eg ra o od Witte SS SSSI SS SE a ooo ooo j 4 29 OAND.219/2013 Sisagreement with the tnguiry Report and/or the advice of the UPSC;
fiii} fhe Charged Officer Shall se required to submit, if he soa desires ' his written representation er Submission to the Disciplinary Authority watchin fifteen days, &, All Ministries/ Departments fed toe bring th t a i control, Ail C808, where final oreee wad hey 2 '4 Bt & fen By Ed 143] 3 4% as ct oF c oo oF tn wn CY i i (J.A. Vaidyananthan) Girector {EH} Pelefax: 23092178"
26. Without going in any other aspect and leaving all the grounds Open, we are of the considered view. that the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 has been pasged by the. Authority in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K. Kapoor's (Supra) and in the ow a ae C2 3a DANG.219/2013 case of S.N. Narula {supra} as well as O.M. dated O6.01. 2014. in view of the above, the impugned order dated SL.O5.2012 deserves to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed with a4 liberty to the Competent Authority to afford an Gpportunity to the applicant to file his» objection/representation on the UPSC advice within three weeks of receipt of a certified epresentation the
-
copy of the order and in such applicant shall at liberty to take all the legal.
grounds available te him under law and rules and on receipt of such representation, the Comoatent Authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
27. Accordingly, the G.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs, Pe ee cen eneeeeee ; Peele eee 4.
(RN -Singh) (R. Vijaykumez) Member (7) - Membex (A) we 3 3 ve ';
a t wad Ge y g $ g $ :
3$ s s g :3 3 3
y a 23 ' aS 3 a 2% 3 aN x 73 y s 4 eh