Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Vandana Singh vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2025
Reserved on 24.07.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad
This the 01ST day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 248 of 2011
Ravi Nandan Singh, S/o Ram Singh, R/o Village Baswar, Post
Ghoorpur District Allahabad (dead).
1/1 Smt. Vandana Singh W/o Late Ravi Nandan Singh.
1/2 Pradeep Kumar Singh S/o Late Ravi Nandan Singh
1/3 Jitendra Pratap Singh S/o Late Ravi Nandan Singh.
1/4 Deependra Singh S/o Late Ravi Nandan Singh.
........... APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Kaushlesh Pratap Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, North
Block, New Delhi.
2. Director General of Ordnance Services Master General of
Ordnance Branch Integrated Head Quarter of MOD (Army)
New Delhi 110011.
3. Brig. Officer-in-Charge, AOC Records/ C/o 56 A.P.O.
4. Commandant COD Chheoki, Allahabad.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) To issue order or direction quashing the order dated 30th March 2007 & 07.01.2011 (Annexure -I & II to the original application).
1|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
(ii) To Hon'ble Tribunal may pass such order and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and
(iii) To award cost of the applicant".
2. During the pendency of this OA, the original applicant Sri Ravi Nandan Singh passed away and thereafter his widow and sons have been substituted in his place by way of a substitution application.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the original applicant was initially appointed as a Mazdoor in C.O.D. Chheoki, Allahabad. On 27.01.2007, he was served a memorandum by Respondent No. 3, proposing the penalty of removal from service under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In response, the original applicant submitted a representation stating that his conviction had been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. However, without considering his representation, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 30.03.2007 removing him from service, on the ground that he has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 128/90 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 read with 392 of the IPC, in connection with Crime No. 29 of 1989. The original applicant had already filed Criminal Appeal No. 5757 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, challenging the conviction order dated 20.09.2006. The appeal was admitted on 26.09.2006 and the original applicant was granted bail. Based on the conviction, the Disciplinary Authority removed the original applicant from service under Rule 19(I) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, through the order dated 30.03.2007. Aggrieved by this, the original applicant filed Original Application No. 478 of 2007 before the Tribunal. The case was heard on 19.11.2009. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. as premature but granted liberty to the original applicant to file an appeal within two weeks. The original applicant submitted his appeal accordingly, but it was not decided. Due to the inaction of the respondents, the original applicant filed Contempt Petition No. 140/2010 before the Tribunal. The contempt petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal within two months. However, the Appellate Authority/Director General of Ordnance Services, New Delhi failed to decide the appeal within the given time and later dismissed it on 07.01.2011 without
2|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA application of mind. Aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal, the original applicant filed the present Original Application.
4. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the original applicant, while serving in C.O.D. Chheoki, was arrested on 26.02.1989 by Police Station Ghoorpur, Allahabad, in connection with Criminal Case No. 29/89 under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the IPC. He was released on bail on 29.03.1989, and he himself informed the department regarding his arrest. Upon receipt of the police report dated 31.10.1991, the original applicant was placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 18.11.1991. The criminal case concluded on 20.09.2006 and original applicant and other co-accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Following the conviction, the original applicant was taken into judicial custody. Based on the conviction and in accordance with Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated 30.03.2007 removing the original applicant from service. The original applicant challenged the dismissal by filing O.A. No. 478 of 2007 before the Tribunal. On 19.11.2009, the Tribunal dismissed the application as premature but granted liberty to the original applicant to file an appeal. The appeal submitted by the original applicant could not be decided within the stipulated time due to administrative delays. However, it was subsequently considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority, i.e., Director General of Ordnance Services, New Delhi, vide reasoned order dated 07.01.2011. The action taken by the respondents is in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, and the original applicant's removal from service was fully justified considering the nature of the criminal conviction against him.
5. The original applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
6. We have heard Shri K.P Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
3|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of removal from service without properly considering the original applicant's representation in which he has clearly mentioned that on the date of incident he was on government duty and available in the office premises. No independent assessment has been made by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that in his representation, original applicant has stated that his conviction had been stayed and he had been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court, thus, failure to consider the representation of the original applicant amounts to denial of natural justice. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the removal order was issued solely based on the conviction by the Trial Court, even though the appeal filed by the original applicant against the conviction (Criminal Appeal No. 5757 of 2006) had already been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court and the original applicant has been released on bail. Since the conviction has not attained finality, any punitive action was premature and unjustified. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the Tribunal, while disposing of O.A. No. 478 of 2007, directed the original applicant to file an appeal and granted liberty accordingly. Despite this, the respondents failed to decide the original applicant's appeal within the time prescribed by the Tribunal. The inaction of the respondents amounts to deliberate non-compliance of judicial directions. The Appellate Authority, i.e., Director General of Ordnance Services, New Delhi, rejected the original applicant's appeal vide order dated 07.01.2011. The said rejection was made without proper application of mind or consideration of the relevant facts, particularly the stay of conviction and the pendency of the criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the penalty of removal from service was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, especially in view of the fact that the conviction was under judicial challenge and the original applicant was not in judicial custody at the time of removal and was on bail. Thus, original applicant has prayed that the removal order be set aside, and he be deemed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, as the conviction is not final and the disciplinary action was taken in a mechanical and unjust manner.
4|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the original applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court in S.T. No. 128/1990. The mere grant of bail and admission of appeal by the Hon'ble High Court does not nullify the conviction. As per Government of India instructions (OMs dated 26.12.1949 and 29.11.1966 removal from service can be ordered based on conviction without waiting for the outcome of the appeal under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the Hon'ble High Court did not stay the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2006. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority rightly proceeded with the removal from service (under Rule 19(I) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965). Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that claim of the original applicant that he was on duty at the time of the incident is not supported with evidence. The incident occurred around 1630 hrs. Learned counsel for the respondents again argued that considering the seriousness of the offence and the element of moral turpitude involved, the penalty of removal from service is justified. Prior good conduct or financial condition cannot override the fact of conviction in a criminal case. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that although there was a delay, the appeal was eventually considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority on 07.01.2011 with due reference to the case facts. The Tribunal's order did not mandate acceptance of the appeal but merely asked to consider it, even beyond the limitation period. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the witnesses presumed the original applicant's presence based on duty hours, but official records confirmed that no staff remained present after 1630 hrs. Hence, their statements do not conclusively support the applicant's defence. Learned counsel for the respondents lastly argued that the disciplinary action was taken as per rules and is neither arbitrary nor illegal. Therefore, the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the documents on record and also carefully perused the case laws supplied and relied upon by them.
10. In the present matter, original applicant has prayed to quash the removal order dated 30.03.2007 and the appellate order dated 07.01.2011,
5|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA along with a prayer for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. During the pendency of the case, the original applicant passed away and his legal heirs have been duly substituted.
11. The core issue in this case is whether the removal of the original applicant from service under Rule 19(I) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is based on conviction by the Trial Court and without awaiting the final outcome of the appeal pending before the Hon'ble High Court and without adequate consideration of the applicant's representation which violates the principles of natural justice.
12. It is an undisputed fact that the original applicant was convicted by the Sessions Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, he had filed Criminal Appeal No. 5757 of 2006, which was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court, and bail was granted, thereby placing the conviction under judicial scrutiny. No order to establish the fact that conviction order was stayed and suspended has been filed.
13. Before the discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote paragraph No. 127 of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985 AIR (Supreme Court) 1416), which runs as under:
"Not much remains to be said about clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2). To recapitulate briefly, where a disciplinary authority comes to know that a government servant has been convicted on a criminal charge, it must consider whether his conduct which has led to his conviction was such as warrants the imposition of a penalty and, if so, what that penalty should be. For that purpose it will have to peruse the judgment of the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and the various factors set out in Challappan's case. This, however, has to be done by it ex parte and by itself. Once the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that the government servant's conduct was such as to require his dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank he must decide which of these three penalties should be imposed on him. This too it has to do by itself and without hearing the concerned government servant by reason of the exclusionary effect of the second proviso. The disciplinary authority must, however, bear in mind that a conviction on a criminal charge does not automatically entail dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the concerned government servant. Having decided which of these three penalties is required to be imposed, he has to pass the requisite order. A government servant who is aggrieved by the penalty imposed can agitate in appeal, revision or review, as the case may be, that the penalty was too severe or excessive and not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. If it is his case that he is not the government servant who
6|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA has been in fact convicted, he can also agitate this question in appeal, revision or review. If he fails in all the departmental remedies and still wants to pursue the matter, he can invoke the court's power of judicial review subject to the court permitting it. If the court finds that he was not in fact the person convicted, it will strike down the impugned order and order him to be reinstated in service. Where the court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular government service the court will also strike down the impugned order. Thus, in Shankar Dass v. Union of India and another, [1985] 2 S.C.C. 358, this Court set aside the impugned order of penalty on the ground that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant was whimsical and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back wages. It is, however, not necessary that the Court should always order reinstatement. The Court can instead substitute a penalty which in its opinion would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case".
14. Rule 19 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 under which impugned order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which runs as under:-
"19. SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES:
Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause (i):
Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary *[and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the Commission,] before any orders are made in any case under this rule".
15. Disciplinary Authority on information regarding conviction of the applicant in a criminal trial for the offence under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment extended opportunity to him to move representation. After receiving the representation, Disciplinary Authority has considered the
7|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA nature of offence leveled against the applicant and punishment imposed upon him and vide order dated 30.03.2007 removed from services to the applicant. Appeal has also been filed. Appellate Authority in the order dated 7.01.2011 has assessed all the pleas taken in the appeal and after analyzing the same finding no substance in the appeal affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
16. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that Disciplinary Authority was required to assess the evidence available in the matter as original applicant was present at his duty place at the time of incident. Disciplinary Authority was not bound to follow the observation of the Criminal Court. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in criminal case reveals that applicant has taken in the trial plea of alibi and he has also adduced the evidence but criminal court did not find substance in the plea of alibi raised on behalf of the applicant. The language of Rule 19 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that if an employee has been imposed a penalty in a criminal trial resulting in his conviction, authority concerned will take an account the conduct of the employee concerned, which has led to his conviction then and then only order under the Rule shall be passed.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tulsi Ram Patel (supra) case has also held that exercise is done at the end of Disciplinary Authority in an ex- parte manner and by itself. It is also held that once Disciplinary Authority reaches the conclusion that the Government servant's conduct was such as to require his dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank which of these three penalties should be imposed on him.
18. In the present matter, from the perusal of the impugned order as well as appellate order clearly reveals that Disciplinary Authority has also considered the conduct of the original applicant which has led to his conviction. Appellate Authority has discussed all the issues in detail. There was no occasion at this stage to re-assess the plea of alibi by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 19 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Only requirement is to see the conduct of the employee which lead to his conviction. Both orders passed by the Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authority satisfy the test laid down in Tulsi Ram Patel (supra) case.
8|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Original applicant is involved in a serious offence and he has been punished with life imprisonment. He has simply been released on bail. Conviction and sentence imposed upon him have not been stayed and suspended. Conviction of the original applicant is for the offence under section 302 IPC. In the circumstances, submission raised on behalf of the applicant are not acceptable. No substance is found in the ground taken in the OA. Thus, OA being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
Manish/-
9|Page
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA