Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Sathyanarayana Raju K vs Isro on 20 February, 2025
1
OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 170/00305/2024
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PROUNOUNCED DATE: 20/02/2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Shri Sathyanarayana Raju, K.
S/o K. Ramulu,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Scientist SD,
Laboratory for Electro Optics Systems,
U.R. Rao Satellite Centre,
Jalahalli, Bangalore - 560 058. ...Applicant.
(By Shri B.S Venkatesh Kumar - Advocate)
Vs.
1. The Union of India represented by
Secretary to Government,
Department of Space,
ISRO Headquarters,
Antariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road,
Bengaluru - 560 094.
2. The Chairman,
Indian Space Research Organization,
Antariksh Bhavan,
New BEL Road,
Bengaluru - 560 094.
3. The Director,
ajay ajay mudgal
CAT Bangalore
mudgal2025.03.03
11:13:53+05'30'
2
OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
U.R. Rao Satellite Centre,
Old Airport Road,
Bengaluru - 560 017. ...Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. advocate)
O R D E R (FINAL)
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
This O.A has been filed on 27.05.2024 by the applicant against the punishment provided by order dated 10.11.2023(Annexure - A1).
2. It appears from the record that when the applicant Shri K. Sathiyanarayana Raju was working as Scientist/Engineer - (SE), Laboratory for Electro Optics System (LEOS)/ U.R. Rao Satellite Centre Bangalore. A charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted as per rules. The enquiry has not been challenged by the applicant, he only challenged the quantum of punishment which has been given by Annexure - A1. In para 8 of the aforesaid order the following punishment has been given -:
"Now, therefore, after due consideration of the representation of Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju on UPSC advice and all the facts relevant to the case, in exercise of powers vested as the Disciplinary Authority under DOS Employees' (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1976, the penalty of "Reduction to a lower post of Scientist/Engineer-'SD' for a period of 3 years which shall be a bar to his promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer-'SE' with further directions that the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 3 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE and he shall not regain his original seniority in the higher post of Scientist/Engineer-'SE" is imposed upon Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju, Scientist/Engineer-'SE', Laboratory for Electro-Optics Systems(LEOS)/U R Rao Satellite Centre (URSC)/ISRO, Bengaluru with effect from the date of this Order. Accordingly, his pay will be fixed at Rs.88,400/- in the post of Scientist/Engineer-'SD'(Level-11) on implementation of the Order."
3. By filing this O.A the applicant challenged the aforesaid quantum of punishment and seeking the following relief claimed in para 8 of the O.A:-
"In view of the facts mentioned in para 6 above the applicant prays for the following relief(s) :-
(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal.
(b) Quash and set aside the impugned penalty Order No.DS_4VL-14012/1/2020-Section_4-DOS dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure A1) passed by 1st respondent holding it as shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of offence and further be pleased to direct the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the applicant.
(c) And grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this OA in the interests of justice."
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 4 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
4. It is submitted by the applicant counsel that the harsh penalty has been imposed. He placed reliance upon Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments at Annexure - A -16, A - 17, and A - 18 and upon the basis of aforesaid judgments it is submitted that the case of the applicant was a case in which the aforesaid punishment was not warranted. The punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. The applicant was entitled for leniency. The penalty imposed upon the applicant is absolutely unjust and arbitrary and liable to be set aside as the harsh penalty imposed the shocks conscience of the Court because it is highly disproportionate to the gravity of allegation because of aforesaid penalty the further promotions of the applicant will also be affected.
5. The respondents oppose the O.A by filing the counter reply on 23.10.2024. The entire facts related to the applicant have been mentioned in the reply and it is submitted that the proper punishment has been awarded to the applicant. Looking to the post held by the applicant the punishment is proper. No interference is required in the aforesaid penalty order.
6. The Counsel for applicant submitted 3 judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Anx. A-16, A-17 & A-18. He draw attention toward following para 9 and 10 (of SCC) of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain, (2013) 10 SCC 106: (2013) 2 ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 5 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE SCC (L&S) 833 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 910 = 2014 AIR[SC]766 [04.10.2013] :-
"9. When the punishment is found to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charge, principle of proportionality comes into play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be attracted, which is in tune with the doctrine of Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] rule of reasonableness, only when in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of charge that it shocks the conscience of the court and the court is forced to believe that it is totally unreasonable and arbitrary. This principle of proportionality was propounded by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985 AC 374: (1984) 3 WLR 1174: (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)] in the following words: (AC p. 410 D-E) "... Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads of the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. This is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 6 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE adoption in the future of the principle of 'proportionality'."
10. An imprimatur to the aforesaid principle was accorded by this Court as well in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 611: 1988 SCC (L&S) 1: (1987) 5 ATC 113]. Speaking for the Court, Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) emphasising that "all powers have legal limits" invoked the aforesaid doctrine in the following words: (SCC p. 620, para 25) "25. ... The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review."
7. Applicant also place reliance on Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engg. College, (2009) 7 SCC 301: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 569: 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1146 [14.05.2009] and draw attention toward para 6 ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 7 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE (of SCC) in which para 12 of V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC [(2005) 7 SCC 338 has been quoted:-
"6. The courts and the tribunals can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority only when they are satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged and proved against a delinquent employee and not otherwise. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC [(2005) 7 SCC 338: 2006 SCC (L&S) 69] wherein it is stated: (SCC p. 348, paras 11-12) "11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
12. To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 8 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed."
8. The third Judgment relied by applicant is Union of India v. K.G. Soni, (2006) 6 SCC 794 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1568 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 832 [17.08.2006] in which reliance has been placed upon B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] and Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806].
9. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (1995) 6 SCC 749 = AIR 1996 SC 484), the High court converted the punishment of 'dismissal' from service to one of 'compulsory retirement' on the reasoning that the employee had put in 30 years of service and that he had a brilliant academic record and that he had earned promotion after the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court, The Supreme Court observed that the reasoning is wholly unsupportable. Such reasons are not relevant or germane to modify the punishment. What is required to be considered is the gravity of the misconduct. In the said case, the employee was found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 9 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the known sources of his income. Therefore, this Court observed and held that the interference with the imposition of punishment was wholly unwarranted. In paragraph 18, this Court observed and held as under:
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court /Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court /Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
10. In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] the Supreme Court summed up the position relating to proportionality in para 31, which read as follows: (SCC pp. 478-79) "31. The current position of proportionality in administrative law in England and India can be summarised as follows:
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 10 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE (1) To judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory discretion, normally the Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v.
Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] test is to be applied to find out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties or was one which no sensible decision-maker could, on the material before him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The court would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or whether the action was not bona fide. The court would also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse. The court would not however go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator amongst the various alternatives open to him. Nor could the court substitute its decision to that of the administrator. This is the Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] test. (2) The court would not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational--in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. The possibility of other tests, including proportionality being brought into English administrative law in future is not ruled out. These are the CCSU [Council for Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 11 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Service, 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL)] principles.
(3)(a) As per Bugdaycay [Bugdaycay v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt., 1987 AC 514 : (1987) 1 All ER 940 : (1987) 2 WLR 606 (HL)] , Brind [Brind v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt., (1991) 1 AC 696 : (1991) 1 All ER 720 : (1991) 2 WLR 588 (HL)] and Smith [R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith, (1996) 1 All ER 257 (CA)] as long as the Convention is not incorporated into English law, the English courts merely exercise a secondary judgment to find out if the decision-maker could have, on the material before him, arrived at the primary judgment in the manner he has done.
(3)(b) If the Convention is incorporated in England making available the principle of proportionality, then the English courts will render primary judgment on the validity of the administrative action and find out if the restriction is disproportionate or excessive or is not based upon a fair balancing of the fundamental freedom and the need for the restriction thereupon. (4)(a) The position in our country, in administrative law, where no fundamental freedoms as aforesaid are involved, is that the courts/tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary judgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or administrative authority. The secondary judgment of the court is to be based on Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 12 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] and CCSU [Council for Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Service, 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL)] principles as stated by Lord Greene and Lord Diplock respectively to find if the executive or administrative authority has reasonably arrived at his decision as the primary authority.
(4)(b) Whether in the case of administrative or executive action affecting fundamental freedoms, the courts in our country will apply the principle of 'proportionality' and assume a primary role, is left open, to be decided in an appropriate case where such action is alleged to offend fundamental freedoms. It will be then necessary to decide whether the courts will have a primary role only if the freedoms under Articles 19, 21, etc. are involved and not for Article 14."
11. In the case of Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386: 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039: 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1609 = AIR 2000 SC 3689 the Supreme Court, after considering the Wednesbury principles and the doctrine of proportionality, has observed and held that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 13 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
12. In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2013) 12 SCC 372 = AIR 2013 SC 3540 the Supreme Court discussed the principles & thereafter summed up and summarized the law in paragraph 19:-
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary /departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 14 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-
delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge- sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."
13. In the Case of Anil Kumar Upadhyay Vs. The Director General, SSB and Others, AIR 2022 SC 2008 = AIROnline 2022 SC 570 [20.04.2022] The Supreme court said that the punishment /penalty to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like the position of the employee in the department, role attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him.
14. In the case of CRPF Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011)10 SCC 244 = [2012] 1 SCC [L&S] 398, it is observed that even in a case when a CRPF personnel was awarded imprisonment under Section 10(n) for ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 15 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE an offence which though less heinous, he can be dismissed from service, if it is found to be prejudicial to good order and discipline of CRPF. In the aforesaid case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by Supreme court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 = 2002 SCC[Cri] 767 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate.
15. Recently in State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064 [24.08.2023] the Supreme court mentioned the cases State of Orissa vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 648 and Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others. vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 and again said that the law is well-settled that if in a disciplinary proceeding, the order of penalty can be imposed on the charges proved and the punishment imposed is lawfully sustainable on those charges, it is not for the Court to consider whether those grounds alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 16 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
16. Therefore, the matter is required to be examined in the light of aforesaid settled law. The post of the applicant is also relevant to the punishment provided. The applicant was posted upon the post of "Scientist/Engineer -'SE', Laboratory for Electro-Optics System (LEOS)/U. R Rao Satellite Centre (URSC)/ISRO, Bengaluru."
17. The respondent in his written statement mentioned the details of previous postings of the applicant. It is mentioned that the applicant was recruited to the post of "Scientist/Engineer (SE)" in LEOS/ U. R Rao Satellite Centre Bangalore on 12.04.2010, and was promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer - 'SD' with effect from 01.01.2015. The punishment has been awarded to the following proved charges:-
"Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju, Staff No. NR02282, while functioning as Scientist / Engineer 'SE', LEOS/URSC, Bangalore has unauthorizedly hacked, accessed and opened the official email id [email protected] of Shri K V Ramana Babu, Under Secretary(Personnel), DOS, Bangalore and sent an email dated 05.03.2020 attaching fabricated/fake/forged Department of Space Office Order No.A.22022/8/2012-1 dated 05.03.2020 bearing the forged signature of Shri K V Ramana Babu, Under Secretary, DOS and sent it to Director, URSC ([email protected]) and Scientific Secretary, ISRO ([email protected]) from ISTRAC Spacenet, Bengaluru.
2. By the above act of grave misconduct, Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju has failed to maintain absolute integrity ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 17 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE and has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant violating Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
18. The statement of imputation also having the details of the conduct of the applicant which is as under:-
"Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju was recruited to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'SC' in LEOS/URSC, Bangalore on 12.04.2010 and was initially promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'SD' w.e.f. 01.01.2015. He was further promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'SE' w.e.f. 01.01.2020. Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju, while working as Scientist/Engineer 'SD', had requested for Inter Centre Transfer vide his letter dated 18.05.2015 from LEOS/URSC(ISAC), Bengaluru to NRSC, Hyderabad through Director, LEOS, Bengaluru, citing his father's ill health and other family related problems. Department of Space had considered his request positively and he was accordingly transferred from LEOS/URSC (ISAC), Bengaluru to NRSC, Hyderabad on operational an vacancy Office Order No. A.22022/8/2012-I dated 02.05.2016. vide DOS.
2. Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju while working as Scientist/Engineer 'SD' at NRSC, Hyderabad had once again submitted his request for Inter Centre Transfer from NRSC, Hyderabad to URSC, Bengaluru vide letter dated 26.03.2018 stating that his family problems have been resolved at Hyderabad and hence he would like to go back to Bengaluru. Department of Space had once again considered his request positively for the second time in a row within 3 years and ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 18 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE accordingly Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju was transferred by Department of Space vide Office Order No. A.22022/8/2012-I dated 03.01.2019 on mutual transfer basis. He had reported for duty in URSC on 13.05.2019 and subsequently he was posted to LEOS, Bengaluru where he had worked earlier.
3. On completion of 3 months and 7 days of his posting in LEOS/URSC, Bengaluru, Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju submitted a representation dated 20.08.2019 to office of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, seeking help on humanitarian grounds for his transfer once again from LEOS/URSC, Bengaluru to NRSC, Hyderabad quoting his compelling family circumstances. The representation of Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju was forwarded to Department of Space, Bengaluru for consideration from Office of MoS(Home), New Delhi. Further, Department of Space, Bengaluru vide letter No.A.11012/3/2013-I (Vol.III) dated 06.12.2019 had forwarded the representation to LEOS/URSC, Bangalore and requested to furnish comments/views on the representation of Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju.
4. URSC vide letter No.020/1(1)/2020/E-1 dated 02.03.2020 has intimated Shri Ramanababau, Under Secretary(Personnel), DOS that as the transfer requests of Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju was considered positively twice on the earlier occasions and also the project activities at LEOS/URSC have increased manifold over a period of time and currently he was assigned with critical responsibilities related to spacecraft deliverables, LEOS/URSC has decided not to consider his request positively at this point of time for transfer from LEOS/URSC, Bengaluru to NRSC, Hyderabad. It was also intimated by LEOS/URSC ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 19 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE that such continued practice of frequent transfers affects the overall functioning of the Centre and sets a bad precedence.
5. In the meanwhile, Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju on 05.03.2020 went to ISTRAC, Bangalore at 18.51 hrs and unauthorizedly hacked and accessed the email id i.e. [email protected] pertaining to Shri KV Ramana Babu, Under Secretary(Personnel), DOS, Bengaluru from the computer system bearing IP No. 10.5.10.81 on 05.03.2020 which was installed at ISTRAC Mission Operation Complex [MOX-1 MAR Room] in AOCS Console, ISTRAC, Bengaluru. At the same time, Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju had also prepared -beforehand - a fabricated/fake/forged DOS Office Order No.A.22022/8/2012-1 dated 05.03.2020 by depicting the signature of Shri K V Ramana Babu, Under Secretary(Personnel), DOS and sent the said forged Office Order by e-mail to (1) Director, URSC, Bengaluru([email protected]) (2) Scientific Secretary, ISRO, Bengaluru([email protected]) falsely communicated that the Transfer Order has been issued with the approval of the Competent Authority. The fake order stipulated that "Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju, Staff Code No: NR02282, Scientist/Engineer 'SE', URSC, Bangalore is hereby transferred to NRSC, Hyderabad in the same capacity against an operational vacancy within the sanctioned strength of Scientist/Engineers cadre of NRSC, Hyderabad. Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju sent the said forged/fake Office Order by fraudulently hacking and accessing the official email id pertaining to Shri K V Ramana Babu, Under Secretary(Personnel), DOS, Bengaluru (i.e., ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 20 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE [email protected]) from ISTRAC, Bengaluru to the email id of Director, URSC, Bengaluru and Scientific Secretary, ISRO, Bengaluru on 05.03.2020 at 19:10 hrs. Shri KV Ramana Babu, Under Secretary (Personnel), DOS has his sitting place in Department of Space Secretariat, Antariksh Bhavan, Bengaluru which is approximately 10 kms away from ISTRAC, Bengaluru. The intention and act of Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju is nothing but deceiving the whole system.
6. From the Bio-Metric Access Control System report and CCTV footages of ISTRAC, it is evident that, Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju had visited ISTRAC on the day of incidence i.e. 05.03.2020 first at 16:36 hrs and he left ISTRAC at 16:53 hrs. Bio-metric Access Control System report clearly establishes the fact that Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju visited ISTRAC for the second time, on the same day i.e. on 05.03.2020 at 18:51 hrs and departed from ISTRAC at 19:13 hrs.
7. It is also relevant to mention here that on the day of incident, Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju had left LEOS/URSC, Bangalore on two occasions i.e. at 16:31 hrs and returned to LEOS at 16:55 hrs after visiting ISTRAC. Again he left LEOS at 18.46 hrs and reached ISTRAC at 18.51 hrs. He carried out his malafide act of hacking the e-mail id of Under Secretary(Personnel), DOS besides sending fabricated forged document of transfer order and then finally he left ISTRAC at
19.13 hrs. CCTV footages/Bio-metric Access Control System have amply confirms that Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju left LEOS and visited ISTRAC within a few minutes on both the occasions. ISTRAC and LEOS are situated within a distance of ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 21 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE less than one kilometer radius and one does not need more than 3 to 4 minutes to reach by two-wheeler. CCTV footages confirms that Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju used his two wheeler on both the occasions of visiting ISTRAC. CCTV footages of LEOS and ISTRAC also confirms that the attire he wore on the day of incident is same throughout the day.
8. On receipt of fake/forged transfer order by Director, URSC and Scientific Secretary, ISRO from the hacked e-mail of Under Secretary(Personnel), DOS in order to ascertain the facts, Department of Space had requested ISRO HQ network team to find out whether any email was sent from email id of Shri KV Ramana Babu i.e. [email protected] to Director, URSC and Scientific Secretary, ISRO on 05.03.2020. On verifying, ISRO Headquarters Network Team confirmed that the email id of Shri KV Ramana Babu i.e. [email protected] was accessed from ISTRAC space network IP:10.2.1.254 on 05.03.2020. Based on the information provided by ISRO HỌ team, Department of Space approached ISTRAC to provide further details. On verifying the matter, ISTRAC team submitted a report vide email dated 18.03.2020 verifying the firewall logs for the duration 19:00 hrs to 19:30 hrs and host logs on 05.03.2020 that ISRO HQ email (https://mail.isro.dos.gov.in- 10.11.1.216) was accessed from ISTRAC system (IP:
10.5.10.81) which was installed at ISTRAC Mission Operation Complex [Mox-1 MAR Room] in AOCS console on 05.03.2020 at 19:10 hrs. They also confirmed from the logs of the victim system that physical system access was established on 05.03.2020...
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 22 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
9. It is evident that Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju used his USB pendrive - ksr - where he stored the fake/forged office order for the act. The computer system at ISTRAC Mission Operation Complex [Mox-1 MAR Room) in AOCS console recognized the use of the USB Pendrive by name logs and System logs. 'ksr' from the Symantec logs.
10. The reporting officer(s) of Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju, ie. Shri U V Sreeram Kumar, Head, OSTD, ODG, AOA/Scientist Engineer 'G' Staff No. IS03115, LEOS/URSC and Shri U Rama Subramanyam, Division Head, ORFD, ODG, AOA, LEOS/URSC/Scientist/Engineer 'SF', Staff No. IS04115, LEOS/URSC have confirmed that Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju was not assigned any kind of official assignments/duty at ISTRAC, Bangalore on 05.03.2020. By this, it is evident that Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju had visited ISTRAC, Bangalore on his own accord and carried out the grave misconduct.
11. Subsequently, Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju had also visited DOS on 18.03.2020 at 12:22 hrs and met Shri K V Ramana Babu, Under Secretary, DOS and enquired about his transfer by showing the letter duly sent by the Office of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs to DOS.
12. By the above act of grave misconduct, Shri K Sathyanarayana Raju has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant in violation of Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 23 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
19. The respondents also mentioned the entire service history of the applicant in their counter reply. In the answer of Para 4.1 to 4.8 of the O.A the respondent mentioned the following details:-
"With respect to para 4.1 to para 4.8 of the OA, it is submitted that the applicant was recruited to the post of Scientist/Engineer-SC in LEOS/U R Rao Satellite Centre, Bengaluru on 12.04.2010 and was initially promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer-SD w.e.f. 01.01.2015. He was further promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer-SE w.e.f. 01.01.2020. The applicant while working as Scientist/Engineer-SD had requested for Inter Centre Transfer vide his letter dated 18.05.2015 from LEOS/URSC(ISAC), Bengaluru to NRSC, Hyderabad through Director, LEOS, Bengaluru citing his father's ill health and other family related problems. Department of Space had considered his request positively and he was accordingly transferred from LEOS/URSC(ISAC), Bengaluru to NRSC, Hyderabad on an operational vacancy vide DOS Office Order No. A.22022/8/2012-1 dated 02.05.2016.
The applicant while working as Scientist/Engineer-SD at NRSC, Hyderabad had once again submitted his request for Inter Centre Transfer from NRSC, Hyderabad to URSC, Bengaluru vide letter dated 26.03.2018 stating that his family problems have been resolved at Hyderabad and hence he would like to go back to Bengaluru.
Department of Space had once again considered his request positively for second time in a row within 3 years and ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 24 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE accordingly the applicant was transferred by Department of Space vide Office Order No. A.22022/8/2012-1 dated 03.01.2019 on mutual transfer basis. He had reported for duty in UR Rao Satellite Centre on 13.05.2019 and subsequently he was posted to LEOS, Bengaluru where he had worked earlier.
On completion of 3 months and 7 days of his posting in LEOS/URSC, Bengaluru, the applicant submitted a representation dated 20.08.2019 to Office of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs seeking help on humanitarian grounds for his transfer once again from LEOS/URSC, Bengaluru to NRSC, Hyderabad quoting his compelling family circumstances. The representation of the applicant was forwarded to Department of Space, Bengaluru for consideration from Office of MoS(Home Affairs), New Delhi. Further, Department of Space, Bengaluruvide letter No. A.11012/3/2013-1(Vol.III) dated 06.12.2019 had forwarded the representation to LEOS/URSC, Bangalore and requested to furnish comments/views on the representation of the applicant.
URSC vide letter No. 020/1(1)/2020/E-1 dated 02.03.2020 has intimated Shri Ramanababu, Under Secretary (Personnel), DOS that as the transfer requests of the applicant was considered positively twice on the earlier occasions and also the project activities at LEOS/URSC have increased manifold over a period of time and currently he was assigned with responsibilities related to spacecraft deliverables, LEOS/URSC has decided not to consider his request positively at this point of time for transfer from LEOS/URSC, Bengaluru to NRSC, Hyderabad. It was also intimated by LEOS/URSC that such ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 25 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE continued practice of frequent transfers affects the overall functioning of the Centre and sets a bad precedence.
In the meanwhile, the applicant while functioning as Scientist/Engineer-SE, LEOS/URSC, Bengaluru on 05.03.2020 went to ISTRAC, Bengaluru at 18.51 hrs and unauthorizedly hacked, accessed and opened the official email id ([email protected]) pertaining to Shri K V Ramana Babu, Under Secretary(Personnel) of Respondent-1 office and sent an email fabricated/fake/forged Department dated 05.03.2020 attaching of Space Office Order No.A.22022/8/2012-1 dated 05.03.2020 bearing the forged signature of Shri K V Ramana Babu, Under Secretary of Respondent-1 office and sent it to Respondent-3 and Scientific Secretary, ISRO ([email protected]) from ISTRAC Spacenet, Bengaluru falsely communicated that the Transfer Order has been issued with the approval of the Competent Authority. The fake order stipulated that "the applicant, Staff Code No: NR02282, Scientist/Engineer-SE, URSC, Bangalore is hereby transferred to NRSC, Hyderabad in the same capacity against an operational vacancy within the sanctioned strength of Scientist/Engineer cadre of NRSC, Hyderabad". The intention and act of the applicant is to deceive the whole system."
20. Looking to the aforesaid it appears that the applicant was working upon a senior post. Therefore, it was expected from the applicant to act seriously and not indulge in any activity of forgery. It appears that previously his request for transfer was considered on two ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.03.03 11:13:53+05'30' 26 OA No.170/00305/2024/CAT/BANGALORE occasions. When on third occasion his request was not accepted then he fabricated the forged document when he visited ISTRAC on the day of incident 05.03.2020. On the said date he visited the establishment at two times. Therefore, looking to the status of the applicant it cannot be said that the punishment awarded to him is disproportionate or shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. The department took a lenient view only by awarding the departmental punishment, otherwise in these types of cases Police Report (F.I.R.) should also be lodged. Therefore, in view of this Court no interference is required in punishment.
21. Looking to the aforesaid discussion the O.A stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/am/
ajay ajay mudgal
CAT Bangalore
mudgal2025.03.03
11:13:53+05'30'