Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
K P Ravi vs Deptt Of Posts on 28 March, 2024
1 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00426/2022
ORDER RESERVED : 18.03.2024
DATE OF ORDER : 28.03.2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri K.P.Ravi,
57 years,
Son of Sri K.T.Prakash,
Occn: Senior Accountant,
Office of General Manager (PA&F),
Karnataka Circle,
GPO Building,
Bengaluru-560001. ..Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri P.A.Kulkarnai)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
To be represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
No.20, Sanchar Bhavan,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
2 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Palace Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
3. The General Manager (PA&F),
& Disciplinary Authority,
Karnataka Circle,
3rd Floor, GPO Building,
Bengaluru-560001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S.Sugumaran for Respondents)
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Call for connected records and proceeds from General Manager (PA&F) Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru Respondent No.3 and peruse the same;
3 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
b) Quash the orders bearing No.1586/Admn/Per.V/ KPR/2021 dated 13.08.2021 Ann-A6 passed by the R-3 GM (PA&F) Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority, and No.Vig/14-02/2021 dated 20.04.2022 Ann-A8, passed by Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle Bengaluru R-2 herein in the capacity of Appellate Authority and Charge Memo bearing No.1472 Admn/Per.V/KPR dated 09/15th June 2022, Ann-A16, issued by GM (PA&F) Karnataka Circle Bengaluru R-3 herein.
(c) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant is working as Senior Accountant in the office of GM (PA&F) of Karnataka Postal Circle, Respondent No.3 herein and is currently Circle Secretary of the All India Postal Accounts Employees Association of Karnataka Postal Circle (AIPAEA). One Smt.C.T.Chelvi raised an 4 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH issue before the aforesaid association about the differential treatment given to her by the Respondent No.3 on 15.02.2021, while marking the late attendance in the attendance book in respect of her, but not following the same with another employee Shri Krishnamurthy, though he was late. Accordingly, the applicant in the capacity of Circle Secretary along with other officer of the Association on 15.02.2021 had a meeting with the said Smt. Lakshmi Devi Sairam to find out about the differential treatment shown between the two employees under similar situation. A letter was addressed to the General Manager (PA&F), Respondent No.3 by the Accounts and Finance Officers Association, Karnataka Circle on 19.02.2021 pointing out that Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam felt humiliated by the Employees Association office bearers and requested for taking remedial measures in the interest of working environment of the office. Subsequently, the applicant was served with a show cause notice dated 11.06.2021 alleging violation of Rule 3(C) (2)
(b) (iv) & (v) and Rule 3(1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 ('Rules, 1964' for short).
5 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. The applicant had one more meeting with Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam along with their Association legal advisor on 14.06.2021. In respect of this meeting, Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam has filed further complaint on 14.06.2021 to the Respondent No.3 alleging that the applicant and the legal advisor threatened her in the said meeting. The Director Administration of Respondent No.3 office also filed a complaint against the applicant before the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and Vidhana Soudha Police Station alleging that the applicant along with an outsider trespassed into the office and threatened Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam. A representation dated 24.06.2021 was submitted by the applicant in response to the show cause notice dated 11.06.2021 denying the allegations. However, a charge memo dated 12..07.2021 was issued to the applicant by the administration under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 ('Rules, 1965' for short), which resulted in passing of the punishment order dated 13.08.2021 imposing a penalty of reduction of applicant's pay by one stage from Rs.58,600/- to Rs.56,900/- in Level-7 of Pay Matrix for a period of two years w.e.f 01.09.2021 without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal 6 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH before the Appellate Authority unsuccessfully. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.04.2022 rejecting the appeal confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, in respect of the applicant approaching other forums, an order was passed by Respondent No.3 on 22.10.2021 'severely warning' the applicant.
4. An endorsement dated 03.01.2022 was issued by the Vidhana Soudha Police closing the complaint against the applicant in respect of the meeting of applicant along with a lawyer with Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam on 14.06.2021. Subsequently, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.03.2022, which was revoked on 10.06.2022. Notwithstanding the explanation submitted by the applicant in response to the show cause notice issued by Respondent No.3 in respect of 14.06.2021 meeting in question, the Respondent No.3 has proceeded to initiate a major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of Rules, 1965 by issuing a memo dated 09/15.06.2022. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal.
7 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
5. Learned Counsel Shri P.A.Kulkarni representing the applicant argued that the fight is between two Associations namely, Officers Association and the Employees Association. Vindictive action has been taken against the applicant by misusing the disciplinary control powers vested in the authorities. The applicant in the capacity of being Circle Secretary of AIPAEA, along with other office bearers of the association on 15.02.2021 had a meeting with Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam to find out the differential treatment shown between two employees under similar situation. Hence the applicant has not acted as a Government servant but in the capacity of Circle Secretary asserted for the rights of the employees. No penalty order under Rule 16 of Rules, 1965, ought to have been passed against the applicant. Learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned order dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure A6 suffers from infirmities as no case as required under Rule 16(1)(b) of the Rules, 1965 was recorded. Having passed the penalty order under Rule-16, initiation of Rule 14 proceedings is arbitrary and the same is hit by Order-2 Rule-2 CPC. Elaborating the arguments on these points, learned Counsel submitted that the intention of the administration to 8 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH harass and humiliate the applicant is clear from the ground position. That after the alleged complaint dated 14.06.2021 made by Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam, the administration lodged complaint before the Vidhana Soudha Police and also to the Commissioner of Police against the applicant, which were rejected. Respondent No.3 has also issued severe warning order on 22.10.2021 relating to the development of two meetings. Again, Respondent No.3 proceeded to issue the impugned charge memo (Annexure A16), the same is hit by the principles of double jeopardy. Hence the entire Rule 16 proceeding is vitiated and accordingly the impugned charge memo and the orders of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority under challenge at Annexure A6 and Annexure A8 respectively are liable to be set aside.
6. Learned Counsel Shri S.Sugumaran representing the respondents submitted that the applicant behaved in a discourteous manner before the Senior Accounts Officer in charge of PAM-II Section on 15.02.2021 questioning her official act of marking of late attendance of one Smt.C.T.Chelvi, who came late to office after 10.00 hrs. Being Circle Secretary, the applicant created chaos atmosphere in the working 9 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH place in contravention to Rule 5(f), 6(b) and 6(j) of CCS (RSA) RULES, 1993. Therefore a show cause notice dated 11.06.2021 was issued to the applicant and others on the incident of 15.02.2021 and disciplinary inquiry was initiated under Rule 16 of Rules, 1965 which culminated in imposing of punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years, which is on going. Further to above, on 14.06.2021 the applicant brought an outsider who later revealed as an advocate, unauthorizedly entered PAM-II Section and threatened Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam, Supervisor, that the Police Inspector of Vidhana Soudha directed him to investigate her and also she will be facing dire consequences if any false allegation regarding sexual harassment is made against the applicant. In this regard a complaint received from Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam was immediately forwarded to the Commissioner of Police on 15.06.2021 and complaint was also submitted to Vidhana Soudha Police Station, but no action was taken by them. Thereafter, a committee comprising of Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Accounts Officer of the Respondents department was constituted on 08.07.2021to enquire and to submit their report. The said 10 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH committee based on oral, documentary and visual (CCTV footage) held that the complaint was proved vide their report dated 13.08.2021. Based on the said report the charge memo dated 09/15.06.2022 has been issued under Rule 14 of Rules, 1965 to hold an inquiry proceedings and the same is ongoing. Learned Counsel has referred to Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association ) Rules, 1993 and OM dated 10.10.1990 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. Justifying the impugned orders and the charge memorandum, learned Counsel prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. Rule 16 of proceedings initiated against the applicant has culminated in the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.08.2021 reducing the pay of the applicant by one stage from Rs.58,600/- to Rs.56,900/- in Level-7 of the pay matrix for a period of two years with effect from 01.09.2021 without cumulative effect. The said order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The arguments of the 11 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has acted in the capacity of an office bearer of the Employee's Association, hence he cannot be punished alleging misconduct is wholly untenable. Maintaining the decorum of the office is mandatory whether as a Government servant or as an officer bearer of the Employees' Association. No shelter can be taken under the umbrella of an Association to disturb the working atmosphere of the office by indulging in undisciplined activities in the office. Though the office bearers are pursuing the cause of the Employees' Association, they are bound by the Rules, 1964 and Rules, 1965 in exposing their cause. Office bearer of an Association have no unbridled powers to break the discipline, merely on the that ground he cannot escape from the clutches of disciplinary rules governing a Government servant. Hence we are not inclined to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant in this regard.
9. Having considered the factual aspects vis-à-vis the legal provisions, the penalty imposed under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1965 confirmed by the Appellate Authority, cannot be held to be unjustifiable. Further the next crucial point would be, whether initiating the 12 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH proceedings under Rule-14 of the Rules, 1965 by issuing the charge memo dated 09/15.06.2022 (Annexure A16) is justifiable in the facts and circumstance of the case?
10. It is necessary to keep in mind the background of the case as narrated in the preceding paragraphs for adjudication of this issue. It is ex-facie apparent that the Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure A6) which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure A8). In the interregnum, Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure A10) has issued the order/endorsement of severely warning against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was suspended vide order dated 17.03.2022 and the suspension was revoked vide order dated 10.06.2022. Subsequently, charge memorandum dated 09/15.06.2022 (Annexure A16) has been issued under Rule-14 of the Rules, 1965 and the Article of charge reads thus:
"That the said Shri K.P.Ravi while functioning as Senior Accountant, O/o General Manager (PAF), Bengaluru GPO Building III Floor, Bengaluru-560001 during the period from 13 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 03.08.2009 to 17.03.2022 alleged to have threatened Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam who was functioning as Assistant Accounts Officer, PAM II Section at O/o General Manager (PAF), Bengaluru GPO Building III Floor, Bengaluru-560001 by bringing an outsider who appeared to be a lawyer (in advocates attire) on 14.06.2021.
Therefore, it is imputed that Shri K P Ravi, Senior Accountant, O/o General Manager (PAF), Bengaluru GPO Building III Floor, Bengaluru-560001 by above acts, acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Government servant; thereby contravened the provisions of Rule-3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964"
11. It is evident that the incident had occurred on 14.06.2021. In the charge memo (Annexure A16), it has been alleged that Smt.Lakshmi Devi Sairam, who was functioning as Assistant Accounts Officer, PAM II Section at O/o General Manager (PAF), Bengaluru GPO Building III Floor, Bengaluru-560001, was threatened by the applicant bringing an outsider who appeared to be a lawyer (in advocates attire), it was imputed that the applicant has contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(iii) of Rules, 1964. This incident of 14.06.2021 has resulted in the 14 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH issuance of charge memorandum dated 12.07.2021 under Rule-16 of Rules, 1965. The said proceedings are concluded by issuing the penalty order by the Disciplinary Authority on 13.08.2021 under Rule-16 proceedings and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.04.2022. Subsequently, severe warning order dated 03.01.2022 has been issued. Again issuing the charge memorandum under Rule-14 dated 09/15.06.2022, off-shoot of the earlier disciplinary proceedings initiated and concluded is vindictive in nature. All the charges would have been included in one charge memorandum, the genesis being or realted to the same incident, no fresh charges could have been issued in piecemeal. If the incident alleged in the charge memorandum at Annexure A16 is subsequent event then it would have been a different matter, but that is not so. At the time of issuing of charge memorandum under Rule 16 dated 12.07.2021, this incident now alleged in Annexure A16 was available for issuing Rule 14 comprehensive charge memorandum. In the circumstances, issuing of separate charge memos in seriatim is nothing but harassment to the employee and establishes the misuse of the disciplinary control vested 15 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH with the authorities and the same is illegal. If the administration has failed to incorporate all the charges relating to the issues involved, it is estopped from issuing a fresh charge memo subsequently arising of the same or related incident. Chronological events of the case demonstrates the vindictive nature of the respondents against the applicant and as such, the charge memo at Annexure A16 is tainted with malafides and is vitiated.
12. We are conscious that it is well settled by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that ordinarily no challenge to the charge memo is maintainable. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting the party is passed, that party is said to have any grievance, but in very rare and exceptional cases, a charge memo could be quashed, if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly arbitrary and illegal. As part of judicial review, Court/Tribunals are entitled to consider whether findings of Disciplinary Authority have ignored material evidence and if it so 16 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH finds, Courts are not powerless to interfere, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2024) (1) AISLJ 1. Thus, we are of considered view that when on the admitted facts, the proceedings appear ex-facie discriminatory in character and that there are no specific complaints of misconduct and that the allegations of misconduct flow only from the general provisions regarding the code of conduct, Courts/Tribunals can interfere at the stage of charge memo.
13. The Court exercising the power of judicial review can examine whether the authority has been reasonable employer and has taken into consideration the measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and excluded irrelevant matters [vide Union of India vs. Managobinda Samantaray (Civil Appeal No.1622-1623/2022 dated 24.02.2022)].
17 OA 426/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
14. Thus, in our considered view, the impugned charge memorandum dated 09/15.06.2022 (Annexure A16) suffers from infirmities being arbitrary and illegal.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following:
ORDER
1. The impugned charge memo bearing No.1472.Admn/Per V/KPR dated 09/15.06.2022, Annexure A16, issued by the Respondent No.3 is set aside.
2. The impugned orders dated 13.08.2021 and 20.04.2022 at Annexure A6 and Annexure A8 issued by the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.2 respectively are confirmed.
3. OA stands disposed of, in terms of above.
No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.