Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Satyendra Kumar vs Employees Providend Fund Organisation ... on 23 November, 2021
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI Registration No. OA /0051/328/2021(R) CORAM HON'BLE SHRI M.C.VERMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE) DATE OF ORDER: 23.11.2021.
Satyendra Kumar son of Late Ram Khelawan Prasad, Aged about 55 years, resident of village-House village House No. 47, teacher's colony, Post Office road, P.O. mango P.s.-Mango, P.s. Mango, Jamshedpur, District District- East Singhbhum, harkhand.
............Applicant By advocate : Ms. Shivani Kapoor Versus
1. Union of India, through the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14-Bhikaji Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi, Pin-110065.
2. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, (BR & JH) and appellate authority, Zonal Office, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No. 6 patna, Pin - 800001, Bihar.
3. Regional nal Provident Fund Commissioner Commissioner-1 (Regional office) Employees's Provident Fund Organization, Regional Officer, Jharkhand, Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House, Karam Toli, Ranchi, Pin 834001 , Jharkhand
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Region (Regional al Office) Employees Provident Fund Organization P.O. P.O.- Sakchi, P.s.
Sakchi Jamshedpur District District-East Singhbhum-831012, 831012, Jharkhand.
5. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization P.O.- Sahibganj, P.s. Sahibganj, District Shibganj-816109, Jharkhand.
.........Respondents By Advocate : Shri Parth Jalan proxy counsel for Shri Prashant Pallav 2 O R D E R [ ORAL ] M.C.Verma, Member (Judl.)
1. The matter is at notice stage hearing. Having received advance copy of the OA Shri Parth Jalan Advocate, for regular counsel Shri Prashant Pallav Advocate has appeared for respondents.
2. Assailing Order dated 17/5/19 17/5/19, whereby punishment of withholding of seven increment increments of pay with cumulative effect has been, passed by the Disciplinary Authority & Order dated 16.03.2030, wherein in rather to exonerate the applicant the Appellate Authority merely did pass order to reduce the punishment and did direct withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, instant OA has been preferred. No Revision against the Order passed by Appellate Authority has been preferred by the applicant.
3. Ld. Counsel Ms. Shivani Kapoor pressing the O.A for applicant submits that on the basis of false allegations that on false promise of marriage applicant sexually exploited one lady, a FIR No.21/2015 was registered at Police station Sadar Chaibasa, applicant was got booked in said false case of rape,, during investigation he had to remain in custody for some period and was also placed under suspension but ultimately he, vide judgment dated 30/01/2017 was honourably acquitted. That, on the basis of allegationss cantered around 3 said rape case departmental proceedings was initiated against the applicant.
4. Ms. Kapoor argued further tha that inquiry officer in his report recorded that he did not found allegationss of rape or sexual exploitation, levelled in charge memorandum as proved but he whimsically observed that it is found proved that applicant did stay in a hotel with that lady for three days and that he left the station without permission mission of competent authority. That Disciplinary Authority, without considering the contention of the applicant in its true perspective erspective did pass the order impugned in the OA and the Appellate Authority also disposed of the appeal by passing irration irrational, unreasoned,, cryptic and non speaking Order, without following the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel.
5. Learned counsel urged further that peculiar nature and circumstance of the case ase warrants indulgence of this TTribunal,, irrespective of the fact that no Revision, against the Order passed by Appellate Authority has been preferred by the applicant. She requests to pass an appropriate order and did urge remitting back of the matter to the Appellate Authority with direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order or to dispose of the OA, with liberty to file Revision.
6. Shri Parth Jalan advocate, appearing for Advocate Shri Prashant Kumar, counsel for respondents vehemently questioned the 4 maintainability of the O.A submitting that has been preferred without exhausting the remedy of Revision and thus being premature it deserve dismissal.
7. Considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the record of the OA,, we are shocked to have glance of order passed by the Appellate Authority. Attention of learned counsel for respondents was invited to orders passed by the Appellate Authority and it was asked from him whether this order can be said, by any stretch of imagination, a speaking order passed by an authority in quasi judicial position and learned counsel seeking apology urged that he does not want to comment.
8. Appellate Authority's order is one page order and the text of the order passed by appellate authority is reproduced in verbatim, herein below:-
"WHEREAS the penalty of 'withholding of 07 increments of pay with cumulative effect was imposed on Shri Satyendra Kumar, Sr. SSA, vide Order no. JH/RO/RNC/Vig./Satyendra Kr./2015/34/5654 dated 17.05.2019, on the ground of the violation of rule 3(1) (i) & (iii) of CCS [Conduct] Rules, 1964.
AND WHEREAS Shri Satyendra Kumar, Sr. SSA has preferred an appeal under Rule19[ii] of EPF Staff CCA Rules, 1971against the order of aforesaid penalty before the Appellate Authority vide his appeal dated 11.06.2019.
The undersigned has gone through the appeal filed, relevant records, order of Hon'ble 'ble Court of Additional Session Judge-I, I, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, other facts & circumstances of the case alongwith the comments of RPFC RPFC-II & Disciplinary Authority, RO, Ranchi. Taking into cognizance, 5 the gravity of offence committed, as well as taking iinto nto consideration request made by Sh. Satyendra Kumar, Sr. SSA in the appeal, it appears that imposition of penalty of "Withholding of five [05] increments with cumulative effect effect"
"
will meet the end of justice.
NOW THEREFORE in exercise of power conferre conferred d under Rule 23[2][i] of EPF Staff [CCA] Rules, 1971, the undersigned reduces the penalty to " "Withholding Withholding of 05 increments of pay with cumulative effect."
The same is ordered accordingly."
9. Disciplinary proceedings against employees conducted under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or under other corresponding rules, are quasi-judicial judicial in nature and as such, it is necessary that hat orders in such proceedings issued by the disciplinary/appellate/reviewing authorities should have the attributes off a judicial order. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1302) 1302),, observed that recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi-judicial judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not a result of cap cap--
rice, whim or fancy, or reached on ground of policy or expediency.It It would perhaps be also appropriate to mention herein in OM No. 134/1/81 134/1/81-AVD-II dated 13.07.1981 observations for issuing speaking orders by com competent petent authorities has also been impressed upon by Deptt. of Personnel.
10.In OA in hand, the order passed by the appellate authority do does es not contain the reasons on the basis whereof the decisions 6 communicated by that order were reached. This order do not conform to legal requirements and are liable to be held invalid. We think, it would be appropriate at this stage itself to quash the order of Appellate Authority and to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority to pass order afresh.
11.Observing non conformity ity of order only of appellate authorities to legal requirements does not mean that we have said that Order of Disciplinary Authority conform to legal requirements. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and Punishment any comment of us may have ve its own repercussions and cause complication, hence we are leaving the analysis of order of Disciplinary Authority upon Appellate Authority and are refraining ourselves to comment qua Disciplinary Authority's order.
12.In view of discussion noted above above, the order dated 16/3/2020 passed by the Appellate Authority ((Annexure A/6 in the OA) is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter of applicant is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to pass order afresh on appeal. Aforesaid OA stands disposed of accor accordingly.
[ Sunil Kumar Sinha ] [ M.C. Verma ] Member (A) Member (J) Mks.