Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Chandra Bali vs Nvs on 26 August, 2021
-1- OA/050/00337/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00337/2020
Reserved on: 23.07.2021
Pronounced on: 26.08.20211
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. M.C. VERMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Chandra Bali, Son of Late Ghura, Principal Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Garhwa
wa, District- Garhwa- 822114 (Jharkhand).
.... Applicant.
By Advocate: - Mr. M.P. Dixit
-Versus
Versus-
1. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti through the Commissioner,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B/15, Institutional Area, Sector-62,
Sector 62,
Noida-201307 (UP).
2. The Hon'ble Minister-Cum- Appellate Authority (Chairman, NVS),
Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Joint Commissioner (ADMN.), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Samiti, B/15,
Institutional Area, Sector-62,
62, Noida-201307
Noida (U.P.).
4. The Dy. Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Patna Region,
Karpoori Thakur Sadan, Kendriya Karyalaya Parisar, Ashiyana Digha
Road, P.O.- Ashiana nagar, P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, Town & District--
Patna, Pin Code- 800025 (Bihar).
.... Respondents.
By Advocate(s): - Mr. G.K. Agarwal
ORDER
[ Heard through Video Conferencing ] Per S.K. Sinha, A.M:
A.M:- The instant OA has been filed by the applicant assailing the penalty of 'reduction of pay by three stages in time scale in Level Level-12 in the Pay Matrix for a period of two years with cumulative effect' imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in a
-2- OA/050/00337/2020 departmental proceeding (Annexure A/5) and the decision of Appellate Authority to uphold the punishment by Disciplinary Authority (Annexure A/7).
2. Admitted facts are that on 01.02.2017, when the applicant was posted as Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) Mirzapur (UP), 90 students of the school suffered from stomach ache and vomiting allegedly due to food poisoning and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant for failure to follow and implement the guidelines of NVS regarding functioning of mess and quality and hygiene of food served to th the students. The Inquiry Officer in his report concluded that the charges were partially proved and the Disciplinary Authority, after providing a copy of the inquiry report to the applicant and examining his representation, representation awarded the punishment. The appl applicant icant preferred an Appeal ppeal against the order of punishment which was disposed of by the Appellate Authority, the Union Human Resource Minister in the capacity of Chairman, NVS upholding the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.
3. The applicant in the pleadings and submissions has averred that the Principal is overall in-charge of administration and education of JNV and cannot be held responsible for a freak incident of food poisoning . Ass per the NVS rules, it is the Vice Principal ncipal of JNV who is responsible for Mess management and ensuring the quality and hygiene of the food served to the students.
-3- OA/050/00337/2020 Also,, it is the responsibility of the Staff Nurse to taste the food items before these are served to the students. In a separate departmental proceeding for the same incident, the Vice Principal has been inflicted a minor punishment of deduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay in Level Level-10 10 in the pay matrix for a period of two years without cumulative eff effect . The respondents have thus been discriminatory towards the applicant.
applicant The discrimination in punishment is contrary to judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2013 (1) SCC (L&S) 476 and Naresh sh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2075.
3.1 The applicant has further submitted that despite despite deployment of som somee staff to remove the stray dogs dog coming to the campus the problem has been persisting because the maintenance and repair work of the boundary wall has not been carried out. 3.2 The applicant has averred that though the the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against the applicant were only partially proved but the Disciplinary Authority without issuing any disagreement disagreement note awarded a Major punishment. This was in contravention of the order of the he Division Bench of Patna High Court in B.S. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI reported in 2017 (3) PLJR 182 wherein it has been held that the charges level levelled ed in a departmental proceeding proceeding can either be proved or disapproved disapproved; there here can be no concept of partially proved.
proved Also the
-4- OA/050/00337/2020
allegations in the charge memorandum have no relation with the role and responsibility of the applicant. The departmental proceeding was also initiated without observing the provisions of Rule-13 Rule 13 of CCS(CCA) Rules. Further, the report of Assistant Commissioner, NVS which was used in the departmental proceeding was questioned by the Inquiry Officer in his report as some of the students denied submitting any complaint/statement.
aint/statement.
3.3 The applicant has further submitted that the Appellate Authority has disposed of the Appeal ppeal without considering the pleadings and grounds mentioned therein. As the Human Resource Development Minister is himself the Appellate Authority there is no scope for Revision in this case. The order of the Appellate Authority (Annexure A/7) is cryptic and non-speaking.
speaking. The Tribunal,, in its order dated 15.03.2021 in OA 188/2021 having similar facts, quashed the order of Appellate A Authority uthority on the ground of being cryptic and not dwelling on the issues and grounds mentioned in the appeal by the applicant.
3.4 The applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order of punishment issued by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure A/5) and the order of Appellate Authority (Annexure A/7) and as also the inquiry report of the IO dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure A/4) and to direct the respondents to restore his pay and pay the arrears of salary effected by these orders orders.
-5- OA/050/00337/2020
4. Respondents have contested the maintainability of the OA and submitted that the applicant being the administrative head of the School was responsible for observance of and compliance with various guidelines and rules of the NVS. The applicant was overall head an andd controller of the School but he has tried to shift the responsibility of food poisoning on the Vice Vice-Principal Principal and Staff Nurse of the School. He also failed to ensure integrity and devotion to duty of subordinate functionaries employed under his control. Further, he did not take effect effective steps to check the entry of stray dogs in the school campus specially the mess area aand d ensure proper cleanliness of the mess including utensils. He also did not take steps to provide clean drinking water to the students and to get the school overhead tank clean. All these omissions by the applicant contributed to the food poisoning of the students. Such irresponsible behavior by the Principal of a co-educational educational institution impacts its credibility. Keeping eeping these facts in view, the punishment awarded to the applicant was in proportion to his fault. Though the Inquiry Officer had held that tthe he allegations are only partially proved, the Disciplinary Authority based his decision on the facts of the Inquiry Report and the reply submitted by the applicant. The Appellate Authority had considered the grounds and facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeal and rejected the same upholding the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary
-6- OA/050/00337/2020 Authority has the discretion and jurisdiction to decide on the quantum of punishment under the CCS (CCA) Rules Rules.
5. Heard. Considered the submission submission and perused the materials on record.
6. The applicant has taken following three grounds to assail the impugned orders and in support of his prayers:-
prayers
(a) Major punishment awarded to the applicant is discriminatory as the Vice Vice-Principal Principal of the school Shri Chandan Bagish has been awarded a Minor penalty for the same charges. The discrimination is more striking as the Vice Vice-Principal,, according to NVS rules and guidelines guidelines, is responsible for maintenance of cleanliness and hygiene in the mess.
(b) The departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of several provisions of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. TThe he Inquiry Officer has in his report held that the charges were only partially proved. The Disciplinary Authority without ggiving iving any disagreement note has awarded a major punishment. The Inquiry Report has also brought out several infirmities/irregularities in the Assistant Commissioner's report which was used in the Departmental Proceeding.
(c) The Appellate Authority has disposed of the Appeal without considering the grounds and facts stated in the Appeal and passed a cryptic non non-speaking order.
-7- OA/050/00337/2020
7. It is undisputed that Principal of JNV is overall in-charge charge of the school and in that capacity he is also responsible to ensure compliance of the department's rules and guidelines by subordinate functionaries including the Vice Vice-President President and Staff Nurse. The he disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant and the Vice-Principal Principal for the same incident, the role and responsibility of the two may have varied depending upon the circumstances.
circumstances The charge memo for the disciplinary proceeding against the two officials appear to be significantly different.
8. The article of charge against the applicant applicant reads as under:
" Shri Chandrabali while discharging his duties as Principal as JNV Mirzapur (U.P.) from 03.06.2015 till date failed to follow and implement the guidelines of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti regarding functioning of mess and quality and hygiene of food served on the students which ultimately led to the food poisoning incident on 01.02.2017.
Thus Shri Chandrabali Principal JNV Mirzapur discharged his duties without devotion and without ensuring integrity and devotion to the duty of the subordinate functionaries employed under his control and authority thereby contravening the provisions of rule 3(1) (ii) and 3(2) (i) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 as applicable to the employees Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti."
The article of charge against Shri Chandan Bagish Vice-Principal Principal is as under:
under:-
-8- OA/050/00337/2020 " Shri Chandan Bagish while discharging his duties as Vice Principal at JNV Mirzapur (U.P.) from 09.04.,2012 till Feb 2017 failed to follow and implement the mess management guidelines of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti ti that led to the food poisoning incident on 01.02.2017 in which approximately 90 students of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mirzapur had stomachache and vomiting after night dinner. Thus, Shri Chandan Bagish, Vice-Principal Vice Principal JNV Simdega (Jharkhand) discharged d his duties without devotion thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1(ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 as applicable to the employees Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti."
9. As evident from above, the Vice-Principal Vice Principal was charged for his failure to follow and implement the mess management guidelines while the applicant was charged additionally with failure to ensure compliance of the NVS rules and guidelines by the subordinate o officials. Also, while the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant is Commissioner, NVS, the Disciplinary Authority for the Vice-Principal Principal is an official other than the Commissioner.
10. However, before adverting to the issues issue raised by the applicant that whether the punishment awarded was discriminatory and whether the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules were observed in the conduct of departmental proceedings, we want to first examine the order of Appellate Authority.
11. The order of the Appellate Authority is a cryptic seven lines order stating that the Appellate Authority, viz viz. Hon'ble Human Resource Development Minister and Chairman, NVS has accepted the punishment. The order of Appellate Authority does not reflect
-9- OA/050/00337/2020 any consideration of the issues raised in i the Appeal. The applicant in his Appeal questioned the legality and sustainability of the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. He has mentioned in the Appeal that the charge memo had no relation with his assigned role; that the Principa Principall was overburdened with other responsibilities; that his service record in the NVS was unblemished unblemished; that the Assistant Commissioner conducted preliminary inquiry without involving the applicant; that the inquiry report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner was on the basis of forged signature of the students; and that the charge sheet served upon hi him m was without observing the provisions of Rule 13 of CCS(CCA) Rules. The order of Appellate Authority is neither comprehensive nor the conclusion arrived at by him is supported by any discussion or reason.
12. The Tribunal in its order dated 15.03.2021 in OA 188/2021 quashed the order of Appellate Authority on the ground of being cryptic. Para 8, 9 and 10 of the said order is reproduced for brevity as under:
under:-
"8. Surprisingly in Order of the Appellate Authority also no note of aforesaid aspects were taken.
taken. Appellate Authority merely has noted in its order that it accepted the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and that the appeal is rejected.
9. The order of Disciplinary Authority and of Appellate Authority both are neither comprehensive nor the the conclusion arrived at by either of these Authority is supported by any
-10- OA/050/00337/2020 discussion or reason. None of the Order can be said to be speaking order.
10. It is true, as submitted by Learned counsel for respondents that no Revision has been preferred against order rder of Appellate Authority, but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, it would be appropriate to take cognizance and hence at this stage of notice hearing itself, both orders, viz. order dated 11.06.2020 of Disciplinary Authority and Order dated ted 08.10.2020 of Appellate Authority are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order."
13. It is no gainsaying that the points raised by the applicant in the Appeal needed to be considered by the Appellate Authority.. The order of Appellate Authority does not reveal whether these points were considered and if considered what view was taken. We feel that the interest of justice would be served if the order of Appellate Authority is quashed and remitted back for passing a comprehensive order considering the issues raised by the applicant in his A Appeal.
14. Accordingly, the order of Appellate Authority (Annexure A/7) stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to pass a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order expeditiously and latest within six months. The OA is allowed to the extent of aforesaid observation and directions. No costs.
[ Sunil Kumar Sinha] [ M.C. Verma ] Administrative Member Judicial Member Srk.