Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hukum Singh S/O Shri Likhi Ram vs Central Public Works Department on 22 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1328/2010 M.A.No.1123/2010 This the 22nd day of September 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) 1. Hukum Singh s/o Shri Likhi Ram r/o B-287, Palam Extension Part I Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi-77 2. Karan Singh s/o Shri Lal Singh r/o G-103, Aya Nagar Extension, Phase 6 New Delhi-47 3. Mansha Ram s/o Shri Sampat r/o 15/216, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-62 ..Applicants (By Advocates: Shri A K Bajpai and Shri M.F. Khan) Versus 1. Central Public Works Department Through Dy. Director Horticulture Hort. Division IV CPWD, Indra Prasth Bhawan New Delhi-2 2. Union of India Central Public Works Department Through Director General CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-2 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R N Singh) O R D E R
Shri M L Chauhan:
This is a classical case where the functionary of the Government has shown inability to take action against three employees, who have beaten up their superior, which led to lodging of the FIR against them and ultimately convicted by the trial court, which conviction, though modified, was also upheld by the appellate court. Pursuant to the judgment rendered by the trial court whereby the conviction of the applicants was upheld, the applicants were dismissed from service vide the order dated 24.3.1986 w.e.f. 15.3.1986, which order was superseded vide another order dated 4.10.1986 whereby the applicants were deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 15.3.1986 till further orders. It is this order, which is under challenge before this Tribunal and the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
(a) To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicants and also pay entire back wages, Seniority, Promotion and other benefits.
(b) An order allowing the cost in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.
(c) Any other order in favour of the applicants which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and Proper.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 1.7.1982 some workers working at Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Campus nursery quarreled and beaten up Shri Randhir Singh, Section Officer of Hort. South Division, 4/S Sub-Division, while he was on duty. When this incident was brought to the notice of the Director of Horticulture, an FIR was lodged on the same date with Vasant Vihar Police Station. After investigation of the case, a challan was presented against the accused in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide the judgment dated 27.3.1985 sentenced all 5 accused S/Shri Hukam Singh, Karan Singh, Omprakash, Asha Ram and Mansa Ram for RI for 3 months each under Sections 186 and 353 of IPC and 4 months under Section 332 IPC. Applicant No.1 also filed appeal against the judgment of the trial court. The learned Additional Session Judge, New Delhi, however, reduced the sentence under Section 332 IPC RI to 3 months instead of 4 months. It is not in dispute that the Deputy Director (Hort.) being the competent authority in exercise of the power conferred under second proviso to Clause (a) of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, dismissed the applicants from service. From the material placed on record, it is clear that in the meantime the CPWD Mazdoor Union served a strike notice to the Department with the charter of 21 demands on 15.7.1986 with the threat to go on indefinite strike w.e.f. 3.9.1986 all over the country for their demands and later on due to the union pressure the dismissal of the applicants has been changed into suspension vide the order dated 4.10.1986.
3. The respondents in their reply affidavit have stated that these applicants are still under suspension and one of them had also contested Lok Sabha election as a candidate of a political party. Thus, by doing so, he had violated the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It has further been stated that the then Deputy Director (Hort.) has already recommended dismissal of all the three officials vide the letter dated 2.8.2000 and the same is under consideration. At this stage, it will be useful to quote paragraph 4.1(vi) of the reply affidavit, which thus reads:
1(vi). That in reply to the contents of corresponding para, it is submitted that these workers are still under suspension and are in habit of braking the conduct rules and Govt. direction as one of them had contested the Lok Shabha Election as a candidate of a political party and thus by doing so, he had violated provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is further submitted that the then Deputy Director (Hort) has already recommended the dismissal of all the three officials vide letter bearing No.10(15)/86/HSD/EWC/126 dated 2.8.2000 and the same is under consideration. The replying respondents reserve their right to proceed against such applicants in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. We are constrained to observe that the respondents-department have shown their inability to take action against the applicants and have kept them under suspension practically for a period of 25 years and superseding earlier order whereby the applicants were dismissed from service pursuant to their conviction by the trial court. We wish to notice here that no establishment can function, if it allows its employees to behave in such manner and it was not permissible for the applicants to beat their superior officers, for which action they have been held guilty by the trial court, which judgment has been upheld by the appellate court. If in such circumstances the competent authority has invoked the provisions of Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules by dismissing the applicants from service, such action cannot be faulted with.
5. Be that as it may, the respondents-department under the pressure of the union superseded the order of the dismissal to that of deemed suspension w.e.f. 15.3.1986. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the relevant portion of impugned order dated 4.10.1986, which thus reads:
Order In supersassion to this office order No.10 (15) /86-HSD/1468-74 dated 24.3.86, Shri Karan Singh, S/O Shri Lal Singh, Mali deem to have suspended from the date of his dismissal from service i.e. 15.3.86 and will be remain under suspension till further order.
These orders are issued as per agreement arrived between Central P.W.D., Mazdoor Union and Director and Directorate General of Works, Central P.W.D., New Delhi, Communicated to this office vide his office Memorandum No.9/10/85-EC-V dated 12.9.86.
6. It may be relevant to state here that the aforesaid order could have been passed if the respondents have thought to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicants or to take any other further action based upon their conviction otherwise a person cannot be placed under suspension. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the respondents have not taken any action against the applicants pursuant to the impugned order dated 4.10.1986 and rather they have made payment of subsistence allowance to the applicants from Government exchequer for a period of about 25 years. According to us, such an action on part of the functionary of the Government cannot be condoned, which has caused substantial loss to the Government exchequer without taking any work from the applicants. We are also shocked to notice that even the respondents in their reply affidavit have shown their helplessness to take action against the applicants. Rather the respondents in their reply, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above, have stated that even on 2.8.2000 the Deputy Director (Hort.) has recommended dismissal of all these officials but the matter has been kept under cold storage in the garb of consideration and no action has been taken even after a lapse of 11 years. Thus, according to us, there may be some officers in the Department, who are extending undue favour/benefit to the applicants not by oversight but deliberately may be convincing with them, by placing them under suspension and thereby making payment of subsistence allowance from the Government exchequer against the defaulting officials. It is stated here that either the action against the applicants could have been taken to the logical end or in case the Department did not want to take any action against the applicants, in that eventuality, they should have been reinstated, so that the appropriate works could have been taken from them. Be that as it may, we have no option but to hold that the applicants cannot be kept under suspension for indefinite period, more particularly in view of the mandate contained in Sub-Rule (vii) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
7. Accordingly, the present OA is disposed of and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants forthwith. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the applicants shall not be entitled to payment of back-wages, as the impugned order dated 4.10.1986, whereby they have been placed under suspension, has been challenged by them after a lapse of about 25 years. Further in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the period of deemed suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty only for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi to probe into the matter and fix the responsibility upon the officers, who are responsible for this entire lapse, which has resulted into the payment of subsistence allowance to the applicants for a period of about 25 years without taking any work from them. No costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/