Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ombir Yadav vs Naval Dockyard on 13 June, 2024
Se ; 1 OA No,277/2024 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.277 OF 2024 Dated this Thursday, the 13% day of June, 2024 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.G.SEWLIKAR, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE SHRI RAJINDER KASHYAP, MEMBER (A) Ombir Yadav, Aged 54 years, Working as HSK at C.19(IBC)/Out Fitting, Naval Dockyard, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai -- 23 Residing at: 1/13, NCH Colony, LBS Road, Kanjurmarg (W), Mumbai 400 078. - Applicant (In person) . Versus 1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, SO Ministry of Defense, South Block, New Dethi 110 001. 2. The Chief of the Nava! Staff Raisina Hill, South Block, New Delhi 110 066." . 3. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Head Quarters, Western Naval Command, Mumbai 400 023. | 4. The Admiral Superintendent Naval Dockyard, - Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400 023. | - Respondents (By Advocate Shri R.R.Shetty) ORAL ORDER Per : Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J)
This application has filed under Section of 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for revocation of suspension order dated 05" June, 2023.
ss 3 QA No.277/20242. Facts in brief are that the applicant is serving as HSK-1 in Central 19 Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, On 01% June, 2023, the applicant reported late to the office. On that count there was heated argument between his superior Mr. Ravindra B. Rane (Foreman), The allegation against the applicant is that during the incident, the applicant slapped Mr. Ravindra B. Rane (Foreman), Mr. Ravindra B. Rane immediately informed his superior telephonically. The applicant was placed under suspension by order dated 05% June, 2023, for a period of 90 days. The charge-sheet was subsequently served on the applicant. It was challenged before this Tribunal by | preferring OA No.573/2023, This OA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 10 October, 2023. In para 8, this Tribunal gave following direction to respondents:
"8. We, therefore, remand this matter to the respondent No.2 with a direction that the inquiry proceedings shall begin from the stage when the charge memorandum was issued and the officer of the rank of Admiral Superintendent in the Naval Headquarters shall be appointed by the respondent No.2 who shall act as Disciplinary Authority. Respondent No.2 is directed to appoint an officer who is independent/not connected with naval Dockyard, Mumbai, who shail conduct the enquiry as per the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965", .
This direction unequivocally states that the respondents shal appoint the officer of the rank of Admiral Superintendent in the ~ 3 , OA No.277/2024 Naval Head Quarters who shall act as Disciplinary Authority Respondent No.2 was ; also directed to appoint an officer who is independent / not connected with Naval Dockyard, Mumbai who shall conduct enquiry as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondent No.2 has not appointed the officer pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal. 'He has further alleged that after expiry of period of 90 days, his suspension was reviewed and it was extended by another 90 days." By order dated 01% December, 2023 suspension was extended and again by order dated 28" February, 2024 suspension was again extended, Party in person submits that during the pendency of this application by order dated 24th May, 2024 . suspension was again reviewed for another 90 days. He submits
- that the respondent No.2 has not appointed the officer of the rank of the Admirai Superintendent. in the Naval Headquarters as directed by this Tribunal by the order dated 10 October, 2023. The applicant is also claiming that he has not been paid subsistence allowance as per the rules, By now he should have been paid 75% of the salary.
4. Respondents have filed reply contending that the applicant has been placed under suspension because of serious misconduct 7 q ia Ras?
E528 he has committed, It is contended that the applicant slapped the 4 OA No.277/2024 superior officer j.e. Foreman Mr. Ravindra B. Rane without any Provocation. The applicant was, therefore, rightly placed under suspension. The suspension has also been legally reviewed and, therefore, no inference by this Tribunal is called for.
5. We have heard party in person and Shri Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Party in person has invited our attention to the para 8 of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.573/2023. We have extracted para 8 of this order in para No.2 of this judgment. In terms of this order, respondent No.2 was directed to appoint the Officer of the rank of Admiral Superintendent in the Naval Headquarters who shall act as Disciplinary Authority. it is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 has not made the appointment as directed by this Tribunal, The composition of the Review Committee is the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and any Officer of the rank of the Disciplinary Authority. The officer appointed by the respondent No.2 was to act as Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of Review Committee in place of Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard. Since respondent No.2 has not appointed any officer of the rank of Admiral Superintendent in Naval SE 5 | OA No.277/2024 Dockyard, there was no Disciplinary Authority in the Review Committee as directed by this Tribunal. The officer who acted as a Disciplinary Authority was not supposed to act as a Disciplinary Authority in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 10! October, 2023. Therefore, the review of suspension is not in accordance with law. Hence, it cannot be sustained. Therefore, the extension of Suspension order dated 01% December, 2023 and ail other subsequent extension of suspension orders are illegal and have to set aside.
7, In terms of FR 53, according to the applicant, the amount of subsistence allowance has to be reviewed by 50% and if suspension exceeds beyond six months, Subsistence allowance has to be increased by 75%.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have made the calculations. However, as directed by this Tribunal, he cannot produce those calculations before the Tribunal as regards the amount of subsistence allowance paid by | the respondents to the applicant.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the party in person and the learned counsel for the respondents.
a @) Re 4 Se) 6 OA No.277/2024
10. The respondents have not furnished the details of the Subsistence Allowance paid till date to the applicant. The applicant
- contends that he is getting even now.25% of the basic Salary as Subsistence Allowance.
11. Since the respondents have not furnished any details, it can be said that the respondents have not paid the Subsistence - Allowance as per the rules. The officer from Naval Dockyard Shri B.K.Ondia, Deputy Manager (Legal) is present in the Court. He submits that the applicant be directed to furnish the details of Subsistence Allowance he has received. The respondents will tally the figures available with the respondents. If the Subsistence Allowance i is not paid as per FR 53, the respondents will take steps to pay the Subsistence Allowance as per FR 53.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents be permitted to place the applicant under suspension afresh. He states that his submission is backed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483 decided on 29" March, 1993. Such a direction cannot be given. It is for the respondents to take the action as deemed fit.
The applicant shall furnish the details of Subsistence Allowance "Se 7 OA No.277/2024 received by him within a period of one week from today. The respondents shail pay the Subsistence Allowance as per FR 53 within four weeks.
13. In view of the above, we pass the following order :
(a) Application is allowed:
(b) Extension of suspension dated 01° December, 2023 and all the further extensions shall stand revoked.
(c). The applicant be reinstated.
(d). The applicant is directed to give the details of the Subsistence Allowance, he has received. The respondents are directed to pay the Subsistence Allowance in terms of Rule 53 of the Fundamental Right, if the same has not been paid.
(e). There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice|M.G.Sewlikar) Member (Administrative) . _ Member (Judicial) gc.