Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
V Vijayaraghavan vs Ut Of Puducherry on 12 March, 2025
1 OA No. 506/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00506/2023
Dated this, the 12th day of March Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
V.Vijayaraghavan,
No. 6, 5th Cross Street,
Gnanapragasam Nagar,
Puducherry 605008. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. M.S.Govindarajan
Vs.
1.Government of Puducherry,
By its Chief Secretary,
Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue,
Puducherry 605001.
2.The Secretary to Government, CCD (CVO),
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry 605001.
3.The Secretary to Government (Transport),
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry 605001.
4.Transport Commissioner,
Government of Puducherry,
Transport Department, Puducherry 605004. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
2 OA No. 506/2023
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) to set aside the order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings No.231/Tr.Sectt/2013 dated 30.09.2013 and Lr.No.9800/GAW/ESTT/E1/2022 dated 11.11.2022 and consequentially;
ii) direct the first respondent rescind the order of removal imposed on the petitioner and to settle the pensionary and retirement benefits to the petitioner;
iii) and pass such other order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The facts of the case as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-
2.1. The applicant joined service in the Department of Transport of Government of Puducherry as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the 1984. Thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 27.06.2001.
While the applicant was officiating as Regional Transport Officer, Karaikkal in the year 2010 the CBI laid a trap based on anonymous complaint and an FIR was registered against him under Section 7 and under 13(2) r/w Section 13(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant was placed under suspension on 12.07.2010 thereafter the suspension was revoked on 22.08.2011 and permitted the petitioner to join service. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge of Puducherry at Karaikkal convicted the applicant on 06.03.2012 in Special C.C. No. 1/2010. Aggrieved by the order of conviction the applicant filed an appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 185/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
3 OA No. 506/20232.2. While matter stood thus, the respondent No. 4 had removed the applicant from service on the last day of his service on 30.09.2013 by invoking Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the applicant on 18.01.2018. The conviction and the sentence imposed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Puducherry at Karaikkal in C.C.No.1 of 2020 on 06.03.2012 was set aside by acquitting the applicant from all charges.
2.3. The applicant had made representation to the first respondent for revocation of the punishment imposed on him. Despite the order of acquittal by the Hon'ble High Court in appeal filed by him in Crl. Appeal No. 185/2012, the 1st respondent did not revoke the major punishment imposed on the applicant.
2.4. The order of removal was passed on the date of retirement of the applicant ie., 30.09.2013 hastily without following the due procedure of law by an incompetent authority. The order was passed by the Special Secretary to Government (Transport) who was not the Appointing Authority for the petitioner herein who belonged to Group-B Category and therefore the order was issued against the provisions of Art. 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. 2.5. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 of the said Rules may be imposed on a member of Central Civil Service other than the General Central Service by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the schedule in this 4 OA No. 506/2023 behalf or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the President. In terms of the schedule to these rules, the Administrator, Puducherry is the Appointing authority for Group-B category of posts. Therefore, the removal order issued by the Special Secretary to Government (Transport) subordinate to the Administrator is void ab initio. 2.6. The applicant states that the order of removal of the petitioner from Government Service was passed by the Special Secretary to Government by invoking Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In other words, he had dispensed with the inquiry and imposed the punishment straight away. Yet again, the Special Secretary to Government had contravened clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and also Rule 19 (ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence the respondents have failed to follow the due procedure of law. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the following relief.
3.1. The respondents have filed reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant while he was serving in Karaikal was arrested on 09.07.2010 by the Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB, Chennai and was charge sheeted on 09.07.2010 by the ACB, Chennai under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, a Special Calendar Case No.1 of 2010 was also filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal by the CBI and was convicted vide judgment, dated 06.03.2012 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six 5 OA No. 506/2023 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 13(2) readwith Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3.2. The applicant was suspended with effect from 09.07.2010, the date of his arrest and detention as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Order No.1- 14/TD/TEA-1/2010, dt. 12.07.2010 and was reinstated from 22.08.2011 onwards till the date of his removal from service on 30.09.2013. Based on the judgment of conviction dated applicant 06.03.2012 the applicant was issued a charge memorandum under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum No.220/Tr.Sectt./GAW/2013, dated 18.09.2013 of the Transport Secretariat for imposition of major penalty of removal from service and was also granted an opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty and the applicant submitted his representation, dated 24.09.2013 stating that he had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 185/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court. Further, vide Order No.331/Tr./Sectt/2013, dated 30.09.2013, he was removed from service in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 by the Disciplinary Authority.
6 OA No. 506/20233.3. The applicant was involved in two criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In one case vide Special C.C.No.1/2010, he was convicted vide judgment, dated 06.03.2012 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 13(2) readwith Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Later, he was enlarged on bail by the order dated 14.03.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Crl. M.P. No. 1/2012 in Crl. A. No. 185/2012. Thereafter, vide judgment dt. 18.01.2018 in Crl. A. No. 185/2012 the applicant was acquitted for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and by giving the benefit of doubt, the accused was acquitted from the criminal case against him. Further, vide Lr. No. C-/RC28(A)/2010/CBI/ACB/Chennai/3011/2812, dated 05.08.2020 the CBI has intimated that the CBI has not preferred any appeal/SLP against the order, dated 18.01.2018.
3.4. In an another case, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Puducherry has filed a case against the applicant vide Special C.C.No.3/2012 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Puducherry. Aggrieved over the case, 7 OA No. 506/2023 the above said individual has filed Crl. R. C. No. 1303/2014 in M.P.No. 1/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras praying to discharge from the criminal case filed against him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Puducherry. The Hon'ble High Court vide Order, dated 11.03.2015 has passed an order discharging the individual from the criminal case. Pursuant to the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, the Court of the Special Judge, Puducherry vide docket order dt. 30.03.2015 had closed the case and the applicant has willfully suppressed the above facts before this Tribunal. Further, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit vide Letter Cr.No.2/2002/SP(VAC) dated 17.12.2020 has stated that no appeal has been preferred by the said Unit against the discharge order, dated 11.03.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. 3.5. The applicant was removed from service on 30.09.2013, ie., on the date of his retirement from service by invoking Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 dispensing the conduct of full fledged disciplinary proceedings due to his conviction in the criminal case. In accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases, the subsequent acquittal of the individual from the criminal case is not a ground for interfering or modifying the punishment imposed on the individual. It is also a well settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charges. Further, even in the case of acquittal of the 8 OA No. 506/2023 individual from the criminal case, there is no bar to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
3.6. As far as the case of the applicant is concerned, in one criminal case he was convicted on 06.03.2012 and in another criminal case, he was discharged on 11.03.2015. As per Rule 9(2)(c)(i) and (ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, the Departmental Proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment, shall be instituted only with the sanction of the President and shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Thereby, the limitation period had already lapsed for institution of the disciplinary proceedings against the retired government servant.
3.7. The applicant had given representations, requesting for the revocation of his removal and to regularise his service for settlement of pension and other related benefits and therefore the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, High Court was sought by the Department. Also, the opinion of the Law Department, Puducherry was also sought in this issue by the Transport Department The Law Department had tendered opinion, dated 11.01.2021 stating that the acquittal of the individual cannot be termed as a honourable acquittal. Further, during the pendency of the criminal case against the applicant, the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and was removed from service on 30.09.2013, that is, the date of retirement of the applicant 9 OA No. 506/2023 from service and the issue of revocation of removal order is not necessary in the applicant's case, as the acquittal is not a honourable one, for the reason that the Hon'ble Court has acquitted him only by giving the benefit of doubt and the said opinion was reiterated on 27.09.2021 and 20.07.2022 by the Law Department, Puducherry.
3.8. In view of the acquittal order, dated 18.01.2018 in Crl.A.No. 185/2012 of the Hon'ble High Court and on the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and the Law Department, the Chief Secretary to Government had recommended for 'no revocation of removal order' and had referred the file to the Government of Puducherry. Conclusively, the Lt. Governor concluded that there is no need to set aside the order of penalty of removal from service imposed on the applicant as the nature of acquittal must be looked into and in the instant case, the acquittal of applicant was not a honourable one. Accordingly, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. The learned counsel for respondents had relied upon the following judgments/citations in support of his arguments :-
i. Judgment dt. 27.03.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. R. Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and ors;
ii. Judgment dt. 29.10.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and ors Vs. Heem Singh;
iii. Southern Railway Officers Association Vs. UoI, (2009) 9 SCC 24.10 OA No. 506/2023
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The applicant has cited the following three grounds seeking the relief:-
i. The procedure prescribed in Rule 19 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has not been followed;
ii. The opinion of Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras has not been taken into account while passing the order of removal from service;
iii. The representation/appeal has been rejected without application of mind.
7. It is noticed that the applicant has been removed from service vide their order dt. 30.09.2013 in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 19 (i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which is being contested. The same is extracted below for ready reference :-
"19. Special procedure in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18-
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or
(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules.
the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
11 OA No. 506/2023
Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i):
Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the Commission, within the time-limit specified in Clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 before any orders are made in any case under this rule."
8. The Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 empowers the disciplinary authority to pass orders in the case of conviction of the government servant of a criminal charge while giving an opportunity before making any order. It is noticed that the applicant has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2010 on 06.03.2012 on a criminal charge and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000 in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months u/s. 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Consequent to the conviction order, the respondent authorities have issued a notice on 18.09.2013 giving opportunity to the applicant for making representation on the penalty proposed within a period of 7 days. Further, he was given an opportunity of personal hearing to offer his written explanation which has been duly considered by the disciplinary authority before passing final order dt. 30.09.2013 removing him from service. Since the due process as 12 OA No. 506/2023 prescribed in the Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules has been followed, we do not find any deficiency of due procedure in the present case.
9. It is a fact that the conviction order dt. 06.03.2013 of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry has been set aside by the Hon'ble Madras High Court through Criminal Appeal No. 185/2012 vide their judgment dt. 18.01.2018. The relevant para of the acquittal order is extracted below :-
" 23. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused with acceptable evidence. The only other materials available its recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. However, the accused clearly explained that the calculated penalty amount for the seized vehicle was Rs.35,000/- and PW.2 has left before the said amount in his table, instead of remitting the same with cashier. Further, as stated above, in the light of contradictions between the statement recorded by the Inspector of Police and the oral evidence of the witnesses before the Court, the foundation of the prosecution case has been shaken to great extent. In such circumstances, grave doubt arises about the veracity the case and the subsequent events as projected by the prosecution, in my considered opinion is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and the appeal is to be entertained. The point is answered accordingly.
24. In the result, this, Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal, in Special C.C.No. 1 of 2010 dated 06.03.2012, is set aside and the appellant/accused of acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded forthwith."
Subsequent to the acquittal order, the applicant has submitted a representation on 09.08.2021 requesting for setting aside the orders of penalty of removal from service and to reinstate him with immediate effect with consequential retiral benefits. However, prior to his representation, the 13 OA No. 506/2023 Executive Engineer, Government Automobile Workshop has obtained a legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor for Puducherry in Madras High Court on whether an appeal or revision is pending against the order of acquittal and whether the request of the applicant to regularise services should be considered. The Ld. Public Prosecutor vide their communication dt. 13.11.2019 has opined that only Special Leave Petition can be preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that too by the Central Bureau of Investigation which needs to be verified and on the issue of regularisation of the services, the Ld. Public Prosecutor opined that "If the order of removal from service was based on charge memorandum and a separate departmental enquiry, the same need not be changed. But if the same is only on the ground of conviction in the criminal case, then definitely upon acquittal in the criminal case, that order has to be revoked and further decision has to be taken, taking into account the nature of charge and the nature of acquittal and the disciplinary authority has to decide (i) whether to permit the retirement and settle all benefits or (ii) to place him under suspension and initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law; or (iii) permit him to retirement on condition to continue disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law."
10. It is further noticed that the Government of Puducherry has also obtained the opinion of their law department on the issue of revocation of the order of removal from service issued in respect of the applicant 14 OA No. 506/2023 consequent to his acquittal order. The law department while quoting the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. R. Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and ors has opined that as the acquittal of the applicant is not honourable one, there is no ground for a review of the order of removal. They also cited the Office Memorandum dt. 21.07.2016 of DoPT stating that in case of acquittal also if the Court has not acquitted the accused honourably, the charge sheet may be issued and an acquittal on technical grounds or where a benefit of doubt has been given to the accused will have no effect on the penalty imposed under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Subsequently, the competent authority has decided that there is no need to set aside the order of penalty of removal from service imposed in case of the applicant.
11. As regards legal opinion by the Ld. Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the legal opinion has been obtained by the Executive Engineer who is neither the disciplinary authority nor the appointing authority. Therefore, it cannot be legally binding on the disciplinary authority. On the other hand, competent authority has obtained the views of the law department which have been considered by the competent authority before concluding that there is no need to set aside the order of penalty of removal from service. In view of this, it is held that the opinion of Public Prosecutor issued to the Executive Engineer is not legally binding on the Government of Puducherry and the disciplinary authority has disposed of the representation after careful 15 OA No. 506/2023 consideration in the matter. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the disciplinary authority has rejected the representation without application of mind is not tenable.
12. It may be mentioned that the order of removal was passed on the date of retirement of the applicant ie., on 30.09.2013 and on the said date, the conviction order was in vogue against the applicant. Therefore, the order of removal cannot be said to be unlawful. Subsequently, when the order of acquittal was issued by the Hon'ble High Court on 18.01.2018, the applicant was not in service. Therefore, there is no occasion for reinstatement of the applicant after his acquittal by Hon'ble High Court. At best his punishment could have been reviewed which has been done by the competent authority in consultation with the law department and decided not to revoke the order of dismissal from service.
13. In view of the above foregoings, there is no merit in the case and the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
12.03.2025
SKSI