Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
B Prabhakar vs M/O Defence on 20 November, 2017
IN THE CENTRAD DMIENISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH: AYDERABAD OA NoPE N/2012 Dated: JQUL2017 BETWEEN: 8. Prabhakar, S/o. Late IB. Jaipal, Aged about 28 years, Ordnance F acto EN state, Yeddumailararn, Sangaredidy Mandal Medak District, Rro.Qr, No. 1381, Or dnance Factory Estate, Yeadumanaram, Medak Distric SE, . Appi AND wraed, Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South eon New Dethi- a. the Director General representing Ordnance Factory Board Ministry of Defenc Government of indie. 10 ASE Base Road, Caleutta ~ 1. 3, The Additional DMreetor General, Ordnance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence, Croverniment of India, 1G ASK Base Road, Calcutta 1. 4. The Director (Admn}, Ofa, the Director General, (rdnance Factary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, FP scggsmmmess Calcutta ~ 1. fe CeCae cant = ake - 5. 'The General Manager, \ Ordnance Factory, Yeddumailaram, Medak District, . Respondents ° oon my Counsel for the Applicant > Dr A. Raghu Rumar, Advocate Counsel forthe Respondents > Mrs. K. Rapithal Sr CGSC., M Hon"ble Mr. Justice R. KRantha Rao, Member (Judi) Hon'ble Mrs, Minnie Mathew, Member (Adm) ORAL ORDER
{Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice BR. Nantha Rao, Member (ludl} Heard Dr. A. Raghu Kumar, learned cotmsel appearing for the applicant and Mrs, KL Raitha, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
2. The applicant was appointed as an unskilled labourer in Ordnance factory, Veddurnailaram on compassionate grounds wie.f 30.12.2005 as his father who was an employee of the Ordnance Pactery died in harness, He was put on probation for a period of two vears, His probation came to an end in the year 2007 and if was extended but has not been approved. He worked under extension of probation tf 12.).2009. A crome was registered against him under the allegation of committing of crime u/$ 366 af TBC. He was arrested and detained in prison for more than 48 hours. The department kept him under suspension wef 12.1.2009 under Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules. However, departmental inquiry was not initiated against hn but he was eiven Notice dated 8.4. 2010 to show cause as to why bis services Res not be terminated.
Nolice stating that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case by his rivals and that he would proave his innocence if he was given two months "ime. 'The vial of the criminal case could not be completed within nwo months and thereafter the disciplinary authority ie, the s° Respondent passed an order dated 112.201] terminating the services ef the applicant, The applicant preferred an appeal and | the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 3.8.2012. Thereafter, the applicant submitted some representations to reitstate him into service bul they were not considered by the respondents. [tis in these circumstances, he filed the present OLA, Liv in they reply statement, the respondents contended that as the icant was not satistactery, his probation had been performance of t extended fram tame to time and ultimately he got involved in a criminal case and was arrested in Crime No, 20/2009 registered against hun u/S 366 IPC. On receiving information from the police that he was taken into custady, he was kept under suspension on 12.1.2009 and was issued a Show Pd Cause Notice seeking his explanation regarding the proposed punishment of removal Jrom service whhoul tnquiry. Thus. the contention of the respondents appears to be thai this is a termination simpliciter and, therefore, the services of an employee whose probation was not approved can be terminated at any time without conducting any inquiry,
4. Sow the point for determination is as to whether the orders of termination dated []} 2.2011 & 38.2012 are Hable to be set aside and whether the applicant can be reinstated inte service Led oe tft Even though the responds eatend that the termination of the ipplicant is a termination simplicitor invelving no stiema, from the facts it is obvious that the applicant was kept under suspension Ponty on the ground that he was arrested in connection with a criminal case and Was detained by prison for more than 48 hours. He was also kept under suspensian u/S 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The suspension would obv iousiy indicate that an inquiry is contemplated against the applicant but no such inglary was conducted, instead a Show Cause Notice dated 8.9.2010 proposing the punishment of termination of his services without inquiry was Issued to him. He was suspended on 12.1.2009 and the Shaw Cause Notice gropasing termination was issued on 8.9,2016, From this ft can be understood that the department waited for the resalt of the criminal case but as the criminal case was net disposed af the termination without conducting any inquiry was resorted. Since the applicant was alleged!y involved in a criminal case basing an which he was suspended by the department, there is some amount of stign order in which event, the respondents pueht to have conducted departmental inquiry against the applicant before passing the arder of termination but they have net dene su. As regards the criminal case, applicant was made accused in SC No.3 7/2010. He was tried fer the offence tS 366 of IPC by the IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge CPUC} RR District at LB. Nagar, Hyderabad. The father of the victim was examined before the Sessions Judge and he deposed that as his daughter was found missing, he lodged a complaint but he came to know that nobody wp Kidnapped his daughter, Having regard to the said evidence of the victim's father, the prosecution did not adduce any other evidence and the learned Mees BSE LE EBLE ION ee 7 son o AS 366 of TPC on é 2 F a J the'wpphtant o charge u therefore, is not by granting any benefit of doubt to. harce acqui itt, rs was ne evidence to prove the char thy s LER the applicant but it is on meriis as against the applicant.
xe above circumstances, it is our considered view that after the e sidd eririmal case, the respondents ought to done so.
In in any evemt, the requittal of the applicant of th aby &, i they have not the applicant without conducting jroumstances, im Gur VIEW, Yad ron orders are Hable to be set ave reinstated the applicant bu d to the aforesaid facts and o:
TALL order PaSSea GRIN:
{ maquiry havi is not sustainable in law. 'The saic aside in the present O.A, ay order dated }1.2.2011 passed against nd the order dated 3. S201 af Vhe nsequently, the tenmim arity and > get aside.
2. Co the applicant by the disciplinary authority conlirm the aid punishment ¢ state ihe applicant forthwith. The applicant ly from the date of the appellat ee RETA TE Sante arp ets +. stad Ray Ee, MY SSP ratond MS SPe G PORES ta POSES however is entited to pay MNO Casts.
eyes V Nee relstatement llnwed as aba.
The O)A. is Kr