Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Smt Alise Marry vs M/O Defence on 17 April, 2025
1 OA No.984/2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.984/2012
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 17th day of April, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Smt. Alise Marry, W/o Shri Albert John, aged about 52 years, Semiskilled
Labour-B (under order of removal), Ordnance Factory, Katni, R/o 16/2, "A"
Type, Subhash Nagar, Ordnance Factory, Katni (M.P.) - 483501.
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Ms. Anuja Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chairman-cum-Director General, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A
Shaheed S.K. Bose Marg, Kolkata - 700001.
3. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Katni (M.P.) - 483501.
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri A.P. Khare)
(Date of reserving order : 25.03.2025)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J).
The applicant is challenging the order dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure A-
1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby she has been removed Page 1 of 10 2 OA No.984/2012 from service. She is also aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2012 (Annexure A-2) of the Appellate Authority thereby rejecting her appeal.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Labour (Semi Skilled) under the respondent No.3. She was served with a chargesheet dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure A-3) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging that on 15.01.2011 at about 12:30 PM, the applicant has tried to theft Government property (Brass blank weighing 4.2 kgs.). The applicant submitted her reply to the chargesheet and denied the charges levelled against her. She had stated in her reply that the charges have been levelled with malafide intention as the applicant was an active member of Employees Cooperative Society and at the time of election when she declined to campaign in favour of Smt. Madhu, lady searcher, applicant was threaten by lady searcher Smt. Madhy about dire consequences. The applicant also stated in her reply that after the alleged incident, her signature has been taken on blank paper by Security Staff and lady searcher. However, dissatisfied with the reply of the applicant, the respondents have initiated departmental enquiry against the applicant by appointing the Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer and after conducting the enquiry, the Page 2 of 10 3 OA No.984/2012 Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 07.12.2012 (Annexure A-5) with the finding that the applicant has tried to steal the Government property. 2.1 The Disciplinary Authority, upon receipt of the enquiry report and the reply of the applicant to the enquiry report, inflicted the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 23.01.2012. The applicant has preferred a detailed appeal on 13.02.2012 (Annexure A-7) against the punishment order, which came to be decided after directives of this Tribunal in Original Application No.565/2012 on 05.07.2012 resulting in rejection of the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the sole charge against the applicant that she had kept brass blank material having 4.02 kg (190 mm diameter and 17 mm thick) inside her blouse. Both the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority failed to conclude that how a lady can keep such heavy material inside her blouse. Further, the revengeful action of lady searcher Smt. Madhu is also apparent as the applicant had denied to campaign in her favour during election. She further argued that the examination-in-chief of the applicant was conducted by the Inquiry Officer himself, whereas it ought to have been done by the Presenting Officer. She Page 3 of 10 4 OA No.984/2012 places reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and another, (2008) 3 SCC 484.
3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance on two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Ministry of Finance and another vs. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 to say that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and the findings were perverse.
4. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the applicant was caught attempted theft of Government material on 15.01.2011 at about 12:30 hours at main gate by security female searchers when she was going for lunch. She was placed under suspension w.e.f.16.01.2011 and thereafter charge sheeted for the alleged misconduct. The Inquiry Officer found the charge established against the applicant and upon acceptance of enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report, evidence on record and representation of the applicant, imposed the penalty of removal from service against the applicant.
Page 4 of 10 5 OA No.984/2012 4.1 The campaigning in an election on behalf or against an individual is a totally different issue and has no relevance with the applicant, who was caught with Government material in her possession for an attempted theft of Government material. Further, the appeal of the applicant has been decided by the Appellate Authority carefully considering the records of the enquiry; order of the Disciplinary Authority and all facts and circumstances relevant to the case. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the laid down procedure and there is no denial of reasonable opportunity or violation of principle of natural justice at any stage of time by the applicant.
5. The applicant, along with MA No.438/2019 has filed some documents in respect of some officials, who were also charged for attempting theft but later on imposed with lesser punishment while the applicant has been subjected to excessive punishment of removal from service. One such copy of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has also been placed on record along with the said MA in the case of Shri Rakesh Singh, who was inflicted with the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages lower in the time scale of pay for a period of three years for the similar charge of attempting theft of Brass blank weighing 4.198 kgs.
Page 5 of 10 6 OA No.984/2012
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
7. The sole Article of charge and the statement of imputation of charge against the applicant, as per the chargesheet (Annexure A-3), is as under:
vuqPNsn&I Jherh ,fyl esjh] Jfed ledq"ky] fV0ua0 lh0,l0@44@2480] vk;q/k fuekZ.kh dVuh ij ?kksj dnkpkj dks ;g vkjksi gS fd fnuakd 15-01-2011 dks yxHkx 1230 cts mUgksaus ljdkjh lEifRr (Brass Blank weighing 04.2 kgs.) pksjh djus dk iz;kl fd;kA Jherh ,fyl esjh] Jfed ledq"ky] fV0ua0 lh0,l0@44@2480] vk;q/k fuekZ.kh dVuh dk mijksDr vkpj.k ,d ljdkjh deZpkjh ds fy, loZFkk vuqi;qDr ,oa xSj vuq"kklfud gS rFkk dsUnzh; flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;ekoy 1964 ds fu;e 3(1)(i) & (iii)-dk mYya?ku gS A mikcU/k - II Jherh ,fyl esjh] Jfed ledq"ky] fV0ua0 lh0,l0@44@2480] vk;q/k fuekZ.kh dVuh ds fo:) fojfpr vkjksi ds vuqPNsn ds leFkZu esa ykaNu dk fooj.k% fnuakd 15-01-2011 dks Jherh ,fyl esjh] Jfed ledq"ky] fV0ua0 lh0,l0@44@2480] vk;q/k fuekZ.kh dVuh dh M~;wVh 0800 ls 1700 dh f"kQ~V esa FkhA ,slh fjiksVZ izkIr gqbZ gS fd dfFkr fnukad dks yxHkx 1230 cts tc os yap ds fy, fuekZ.kh ds ckgj tk jgha Fkha rc fuekZ.kh eq[; }kj ij efgyk lpZj Jherh dfcrk fc"okl] i0ua0 010665] lqj{kk foHkkx] vk;q/k fuekZ.kh dVuh us ryk"kkh :e esa mudh ryk"kh yhA ryk"kh ds nkSjku efgyk lpZj us muds ikl ls czkl CySad] ljdkjh lEifRr] ftls Jherh esjh us pksjh djus ds mn~ns"; ls vius Cykmp esa fNikdj j[kk Fkk] cjken fd;k A ml le; ogWak ij vU; efgyk lpZj Jherh e/kq] Jfed vdq"ky] fV0u0 okbZ0,.M bZ0@25@2796] Hkh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr FkhA rqjar efgyk lpZj us ?kVuk dh lwpuk eq[; }kj ij M~;Vw h ij rSukr lqj{kk LVkQ loZJh "kadj yky] pktZeuS ] i0ua0 842540 ,oa f"ko dqekj] lqijokbZtj] i0ua0 10409] vk;q/k fuekZ.kh dVuh dks nhA cjken eky lfgr Jherh esjh dks lqj{kk LVkQ }kjk lqj{kk dk;kZy; ys tk;k x;kA tgWka ij dk;Z vf/kdkjh dh mifLFkfr esa muds c;ku ntZ fd, x, ,oa cjken eky dk out fd;k x;kA out djus ij cjken eky dk out 04-2 fdyksxzke ik;k x;k ftls lhy djds lqj{kk dk;kZy; esa j[kk x;k gSA Jherh ,fyl esjh] Jfed ledq"ky] fV0ua0 lh0,l0@44@2480] vk;q/k fuekZ.kh dVuh dk mijksDr vkpj.k ,d ljdkjh deZpkjh ds fy, loZFkk vuqi;qDr ,oa xSj vuq"kklfud gS rFkk dsUnzh; flfoy lsok (vkpj.k) fu;ekoyh 1964 ds fu;e 3 (1) (i) & (iii) dk mYya?ku gSA Page 6 of 10 7 OA No.984/2012
8. The charge against the applicant that she had kept the Brass Blank material weighing 4.02 kgm in her blouse is beyond imagination as no reasonable person can ever come to the conclusion as to how such heavy material can be kept inside the blouse. The very foundation of framing charge against the applicant clearly appears to be defective as the authorities viz; the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have never discussed this vital aspect in their findings. The report of the Inquiry Officer also does not reveal as to which type of article was stolen by the applicant and the Inquiry Officer has simply rested his finding concluding that the applicant has tried to steal Government property. We also find that besides Smt. Kabita Vishwas and Smt. Madhu, lady searchers, there were no independent witnesses, who have witnessed the reported incident. The material reported in the chargesheet was traced in the search room in the presence of the lady searcher and not in presence of any independent witnesses and, therefore, the story narrated by the prosecution clearly appears to be concocted. Further, the Inquiry Officer, in Para IV of its enquiry report, has pointed out that the statement of the applicant was written by some other staff and not by the applicant herself. Therefore, the version of the applicant that she was forced to sign in the blank paper also Page 7 of 10 8 OA No.984/2012 cannot be ignored. Moreover, the Presenting Officer had denied all the charges based on vague assumptions and irrelevant submissions.
9. We are conscious of the fact that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over and above the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and also cannot re-appreciate the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry. But, at the same time, if the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence or the finding is perverse, this Court may exercise its power of judicial review. In the matter of Chatrapal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another, 2024 INSC 115, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that;
"12. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered as held in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu. In P. Gunasekaran (supra), the following has been held by this Court in para nos. 12 & 16:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Page 8 of 10 9 OA No.984/2012 Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations; or extraneous
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
(emphasis supplied)
10. In the present case also, it is a case of no evidence as the evidences and the documents produced during the enquiry do not support the charges and the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer is based on presumption only and not on the basis of any documentary evidence. The Page 9 of 10 10 OA No.984/2012 Inquiry Officer has erred in finding the charge proved against the applicant. Similarly, the Disciplinary Authority, without appreciating the materials produced before it, had concluded the applicant guilty and imposed the major penalty. We also find that the applicant has preferred an exhaustive appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority has rejected the same mechanically, without adverting to the averments made in the appeal.
11. In the result, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned orders passed by all the authorities viz; Disciplinary Authority dated 23.01.2012 and the Appellate Authority dated 10.09.2012 are quashed and set aside. The applicant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 10 of 10