Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Philips Patric vs M/O Railways on 12 February, 2025
1 OA 21/0079/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA No.021/0079 of 2020
Reserved on: 04.12.2024
Pronounced on: 12.02.2025
CORAM :
HON'BLE Dr. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE Ms. SHALINI MISRA, MEMBER(A)
Philips Patric, S/o. C Philips,
Aged 44 years, Occ: Helper -I (C&W),
(Under the orders of removal from service),
O/o. The Senior Section Engineer (C&W),
South Central Railway, Hyderabad Depot,
Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad RS,
R/o. H. No. 3-50-29, Sardar Patel Colony,
Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.
....Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. K.R.K.V. Prasad)
Vs
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division,
Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad.
3. The Senior Coaching Depot Officer,
Mechanical Branch, 3rd Floor,
O/o. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad,
Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad.
4. The Coaching Depot Officer,
O/o. The Coaching Depot Office,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad RS.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. A. Vijaya Bhaskar Babu, Addl. CGSC)
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb,
SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936,
[email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
2 OA 21/0079/2020
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Smt.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member (J)) The applicant filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"...that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records Order issued under letter No.MECH/C&W/HYB/DAR/SF-V/PP/06/2015, dated 28.02.2018; Order issued under letter No.C.M.226.C&DAR.Misc, dated 15.10.2018 and Order issued under letter No. SSE/C&W/HYB/DAR/SF- V/2015 dated 15.07.2019 and set aside and quash the aforesaid orders of penalty of removal from service along with the Charge Memorandum dated 16.07.2015 r/w. Corrigendum dated 03.12.2015 by declaring the same are null and void, illegal, and in violation of principles of natural justice; and consequently, direct the respondent-Railways to reinstate the Applicant into service forthwith by providing continuity in service from 28.02.2018 as if the aforesaid penalty of removal from service was not imposed on the Applicant and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant, with a further direction to treat the period from 28.02.2018 to till the date of reinstatement as duty and release the consequential benefits.."
2. The facts of the case, briefly, as stated by the applicant, are that while he was working as Helper-I in Carriage & Wagon (C&W) Deport, in Hyderabad Railway Station of Secunderabad Division of South Central Railway, the 4th respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings vide Memo dt. 16.07.2015 alleging that the he had demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- as advance amount from Sri P.N. Ravi Kumar (Decoy), Accounts Assistant working in the office of Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad on the false promise of providing appointment for the decoy's sister and two other candidates of Staff Nurse on contract basis in Railways. Subsequently, the 4th respondent issued corrigendum dt. 03.12.2015 partially modifying the Annexure III and Annexure IV by enlisting certain documents and witnesses. The applicant submitted his reply dt. 05.08.2015 denying the charges and sought a personal hearing. The 4th respondent, who, according to the applicant, is not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings VISWESWARA Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 against him, has appointed an Inquiry Officer initially one Sri Krishna Rao and thereafter, Sri S.M. Prasad, Enquiry Inspectors working under the control of the
3 OA 21/0079/2020 Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) to enquire into the charge levelled against the applicant.
3. It is the contention of the applicant that the decoy operation was conducted by the Vigilance Organization under the control of Senior Deputy General Manager (Vig) and as such, the said allegation ought not to have been enquired into by an official under the control of the very same authority and it has resulted in administrative bias. The inquiry officer did not consider the defence of the applicant and has not followed the due process of inquiry and with prejudice, he has submitted a report on 08.02.2018 holding the charge as proved. The applicant further stated that he was appointed to the post of Helper-I by a Junior Administrative Grade Officer viz., Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Secunderabad Division vide order dt. 14.05.2001. The 4th respondent, who is a Senior Scale officer, lower in rank than the said appointing authority, issued the order dt. 28.02.2018 imposing the penalty of removal from service, without even considering the contentions of the applicant in his representation dt. 24.02.2018 against the IOs report. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the applicant preferred appeal on 17.04.2018 and the penalty order was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dt. 15.10.2018. Thereafter, the applicant submitted revision petition on 28.11.2018 and the 2nd respondent, relying upon the self-incriminating statements made by the appellant to the Vigilance Inspectors, upheld the penalty of removal. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed this OA.
4. After notices, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply statement. The respondents stated that the applicant, while he was working as Helper under SSE/C&W/Hyderabad, was issued with a major penalty VISWESWARA Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 charge memo on 16.07.2015 by the 4th respondent on the charge of his involvement in a vigilance decoy check and that he had demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- on 4 OA 21/0079/2020 the false promise of provide staff nurse job on contract basis in Railways on 24.06.2015 contravening Rue 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(vi) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and IO and PO were appointed. As some omissions occurred inadvertently in the charge memo dt. 16.07.2015, a corrigendum was issued on 03.12.2015. The IO appointed vide order dt. 16.09.2015 relinquished the charge of Enquiry Inspector and therefore, another IO was appointed vide order dt.
27.06.2017. Presenting Officer appointed vide order dt. 24.11.2015 was also changed and another PO was appointed vide order dt. 28.06.2017. It is stated that the inquiry was conducted as per the rules in vogue. The IO submitted his report on 08.02.2018 holding the charge as proved and a copy of the report was submitted to the applicant on 09.02.2018, on which, he has submitted his representation on 24.02.2018 and after going through the charges memo, exhibits, inquiry proceedings, inquiry report and the representation of the applicant in detail, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service with all benefits due to him with immediate effect vide order dt. 28.02.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred appeal to the 3rd respondent and the appellate authority after going through the entire material, confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, vide order dt. 15.10.2018. Further, the applicant preferred a revision petition before the 2nd respondent and the revising authority also confirmed the orders of the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities.
5. On the objection of incompetency of the authority who has imposed the punishment of removal on the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents contended that the applicant was appointed in the Railways as th Helper/C&W VISWESWARA in pay matrix of level-1 (Category Group Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU D) as per 7 CPC. As DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Junior Scale Officer is the appointing authority of Group D category, Coaching Depot Officer, being Senior Scale Officer, is competent to issue a penalty of 5 OA 21/0079/2020 removal from service. In regard to the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual, the respondents submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered a view that the said instructions contained in Vigilance Manual are of procedure nature and not of a substantive nature and violation thereof, if any, would not ipso facto vitiate the departmental proceedings. The applicant was given all reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The applicant has neither taken any objection in the inquiry proceedings nor in his representation against the inquiry report. The respondents denied the averment of the applicant that the content of the affidavit filed by one Sri R. Sudhakar Reddy was not considered by the IO. It is stated that during the inquiry proceedings, the applicant has introduced two defence witnesses viz., Sri Sudhakar and Sri Rajesh. Later on, the applicant submitted the details of Sri R. Sudhkar Reddy as defence witness (only one defence witness) to the IO and accordingly, notices were sent to the said witness to attend inquiry on 12.10.2017, 13.10.2017 and 10.11.2017, but the said defence witness did not attend the inquiry.
Later, the applicant withdrew the oral evidence of the said defence witness and submitted an affidavit of Sri R. Sudhakar Reddy as an enclosure to the defence brief, wherein it is mentioned that the said individual is running a business of man- power supply without mentioning any details of registration of business/ firm and is in search of staff nurse to work in hospitals and also availability of three candidates. He has also not mentioned about the receipt, if any, towards collection of Rs.5000/- per candidate as security deposit for arranging Staff Nurse job in hospital. The IO has categorically stated in his report that the applicant has not made any attempt in bringing to the notice of the Vigilance about the business being run by his friend (s), if any, during the proceedings, so as to investigate into the role of his friend (s) in the subject matter. Therefore, the submission of the VISWESWARA Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 affidavit by the applicant is an afterthought. After considering entire record, the disciplinary authority has passed the penalty order and while considering the
6 OA 21/0079/2020 revision petition, the applicant was also given personal hearing, in which, he had only pleaded for dropping of the charges and for reinstatement into service as he has to take care of children.
6. Further, in respect of the allegation made by the applicant in regard to the appointment of IO working under the control of Sr. Dy. General Manager is an administrative bias, it is contended by the respondents that the IO is an independent person who works under the framework of different Rules pertaining to Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, and without any prejudice, he has decided on the merit of the case taking into consideration the charges, statement of witness, records and all other relevant records, persons, various laws and rules and after applying his own mind and justifying his decision. Therefore, question of administrative bias does not arise and the applicant also did not object to the appointment of IO and he has participated in the inquiry also. The applicant was also given all reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness and inspect all the documents enlisted in the list of documents and after completion of due process of the inquiry, the IO submitted his report on 08.2.2018 holding the charges as proved. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
7. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material as well as the judgments cited by the parties.
8. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, the disciplinary authority, who initiated the proceedings against the applicant and imposed the penalty on him is not competent to impose the penalty and as such, the entire proceedings are to be declared as null and void. Learned counsel VISWESWARA Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 for the applicant has also relied upon Railway Board instructions vide RBE No. 119/2015 dt.30.09.2015, circulated vide Serial Circular No. 106/2015 7 OA 21/0079/2020 dt.13.10.2015 in support of his argument that a lower authority who has merely issued/ signed the order regarding appointment/ promotion, which has been ordered by a higher authority, is not competent to impose the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service on such Railway servant. It is also argued that in terms of the Paras 704 and 705 of Indian Railway Vigilance Manual, the officials of the Vigilance Organization of SC Railway have no competency to lay departmental traps outside the precincts of the Railways and the said vigilance proceedings which are the basis for initiation of disciplinary action against the applicant are in violation of various instructions issued in the said Manual. Further, the disciplinary authority issued the charge memo, which was drafted by the vigilance organization and also appointed as official from Vigilance Organization as IO, who was under administrative compulsion to hold the charge as proved.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dt. 19.04.2018 in WP No. 6710/2003 - Union of India v. N.B. Joshi,
(ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dt. 16.07.1976 in FMA No. 1022/1974 between Union of India v. P.C. Chaudhary
(iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dt. 22.04.2013 in WP (C) No. 4847/2012 - Union of India v. Jagadish Prasad.
(iv) Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dt.
11.03.2016 in Crl. P. No. 5068 of 2015 - Rafiq Ahmed v. State, CBI, Hyderabad.
(v) Hon'ble High court of Telangana at Hyderabad dt. 21.12.2021 in WP No. VISWESWARA 1643 of 2020 in Union of India v. Registrar, CAT, Hyderabad Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
(vi) Judgment of CAT, Hyderabad Bench dt. 14.06.2010 in OA No. 341 of 2009 in P. Rama Rao v. Financial Advisor, SCR 8 OA 21/0079/2020
(vii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Saroj Kumar Sinha - (2010) 2 SCC 772
(viii) Hon'ble High Court of AP dt. 06.04.2022 in WP No. 18766 of 2011 in Union of India v. K. Srinivasa Rao & Anr
(ix) Hon'ble High Court of AP dt.19.12.2023 in WP No.13000 of 2018 in Union of India v. B.S. Purushottam
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the inquiry was conducted as per the rules in vogue and there is no violation of any Rules or procedure in the conduct of the said departmental proceedings. It is submitted that based on the report submitted by the IO on 08.02.2018 holding the charge as proved and after receipt of the representation of the applicant on the IO report on 24.02.2018 and having considered the entire material including charge memo, exhibits, inquiry proceedings, inquiry report and the representation of the applicant in detail, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service with all benefits due to him with immediate effect vide order dt. 28.02.2018. The appeal and the revision petition submitted by the applicant have also been considered threadbare by the respective authorities and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed. On the objection of incompetency of the authority, who has imposed the punishment of removal on the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents contended that the applicant was appointed in the Railways as Helper/C&W in pay matrix of level-1 (Category Group D) as per 7th CPC. As Junior Scale Officer is the appointing authority of Group D category, coaching Depot Officer being Senior Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA Scale Officer is competent to issue a penalty of removal from service. In regard to DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual, the respondents submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered a view that the said instructions contained in Vigilance
9 OA 21/0079/2020 Manual are of procedure in nature and not of a substantive nature and violation thereof, if any, would not ipso facto vitiate the departmental proceedings. The applicant was given all reasonable opportunity to defend his case by the IO. The applicant has neither taken any objection in the inquiry proceedings nor in his representation against the inquiry report.
10. Further, in respect of the allegation made by the applicant in regard to the appointment of IO working under the control of Sr. Dy. General Manager is an administrative bias, it is contended by the respondents that the IO is an independent person who works under the framework of different Rules pertaining to Railway Servant (D & A) Rules, and without any prejudice, he has decided on the merit of the case taking into consideration the charges, statement of witness, records and all other relevant records, persons, various laws and rules and after applying his own mind and justifying his decision. Therefore, question of administrative bias does not arise and the applicant also did not object to the appointment of IO and he has participated in the inquiry also. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon an order of this Tribunal in OA 1515/2014 dt. 26.02.2021, wherein, similar contentions in respect of competency of the authority, who has imposed the penalty, have been dealt with in detail and considering the relevant Rules and various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, the OA came to be dismissed. Therefore, the learned counsel stated that the said judgment is in favour of the respondent Railways and following the same, the present OA is also liable to be dismissed.
11. It is to be noted that when charge memo was issued to the applicant, the Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 applicant has simply denied the charge asking an opportunity of a personal hearing as he wanted to explain. After detailed inquiry, he himself admitted in the inquiry that he had accepted the said money. However, subsequent to issue of charge 10 OA 21/0079/2020 memo in 2015, an affidavit was given by his friend in 2017, which is nothing but an afterthought. If really, he had accepted the said money on behalf of his friend, the said plea was available to the applicant to reply to the memo of departmental enquiry in the first place itself. As the applicant has not submitted any material related to the said facts, it can be said to be an afterthought. Further, the applicant is only harping on the issue that the authority who has imposed the said penalty is incompetent and nowhere, neither in his appeal nor in his revision, he has submitted that how the said authority, who imposed the penalty as disciplinary authority, is not competent authority.
12. We have perused the entire rule and schedule appended thereto as well as the judgments passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1515/2014. The relevant observations of this Tribunal in the said order are extracted as under:
"X [C]. In the instant case, originally it was the DCM, who was the appointing authority, as claimed by the respondents and later, it was changed to Sr. DCM as per Schedule II of powers, enclosed as material papers by the respondents. It is the Sr. DCM, who as the appointing authority as per Schedule III imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. In this context, by applying Article 311(1), it is explicit that only the appointing authority can remove/ dismiss the applicant. The offer of appointment for the post of Probationary Ticket Collector was issued by the CPO, who belongs to the SAG grade and is superior to the Sr. DCM from the JAG grade, who imposed the penalty. The applicant claims that Article 311(1) is thus infringed. However, a closer look at Article 311(2) (b) would make it evident that the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person, in the context of the discussion in the Constituent Assembly, points towards the conclusion that the authority to appoint is the proper authority to remove/ dismiss a government servant. Therefore, the authority subordinate to the appointing authority who has power to appoint, can remove/ dismiss the applicant. Otherwise, clause (2)(b) of the Article 311 will be inoperative. Therefore, though the applicant was appointed by CPO as probationary ticket collector, a superior authority than the Sr. DCM, yet the Sr. DCM being the appointing authority and is empowered to dismiss or remove as per clause Article 311(2)(b), is very well within his right to exercise the power of imposing the penalty in question.
Xxxx xxxx E. The essence of the judgment is that any change in the status of the appointing authority after the issue of offer of appointment would not be acceptable to impose the penalty of dismissal/ removal. In the instant case, it was the Sr. DCM who was competent as appointing authority to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= as per Schedule III of schedule of powers. There is no change in regard to the 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 change of appointing authority as envisaged in the judgment cited by applicant. Thus, a harmonious reading of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri cited supra, Articles 311(1) & (2) of the Constitution and the one relied upon by the applicant in Krishna Kumar, would make it explicit that the penalty imposed by the Sr. DCM is within the domain of law. Consequently, the averment 11 OA 21/0079/2020 that the DRM/ADRM granted grade pay of Rs.4200/4600, made by the applicant in the context of the competency of disciplinary authority, would not hold good. The aspects elaborated by us, as at above, have been conclusively dealt by a larger Bench of Hon'ble Bihar High Court in State of Bihar & Ors v. Manoj Madhup & Anr. in Letters Patent Appeal No. 833/2014 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11307/2011 decided on 29.1.2020, after referring to many judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. The judgment referred to by the applicant has also been discussed by the Larger Bench and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
"4. The same has been challenged in the present appeal and this Court in the Division Bench, taking note of Rule 653, 656 and 825 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 and placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of FCI Vs. Sole Lal reported in AIR (2006) SC 264 , doubted the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge and has referred the matter to the Larger Bench for consideration on following questions of law:-
'(i) Whether, if the appointing authority in terms of the Rule is Deputy Inspector General of Police but the letter of appointment is issued by the office of the Inspector General of Police, then whether the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police can be said to be valid?
(ii) Whether the expression appointing authority and the authority which appointed a candidate have different connotation in law, therefore, the Deputy Inspector General of Police cannot pass an order of punishment?
xxxx xxxx
9. The seminal question involved for consideration in the present case is as to whether the Deputy Inspector General of police, who was the appointing authority but, the appointment was made by the Inspector General of Police, could have passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner. Xxxx
48. Looking to the entire scheme/mechanism, the intention and upon harmonizing different proviso of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the same should be interpreted in such a manner so as to find out the true import of the proviso. Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, stipulates that Government servant cannot be dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed and sub-clause (b) of Article 311(2), wherein it has been mentioned 'the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person', may grammatically be not the same and identical but, the tenor and intention of the framer of legislature, considering the discussion in the Constituent Assembly as well as the objection raised by the Home Department by various letters during the course of framing of the Constitution, itself reflects that the person who has authority to appoint is the proper authority to dismiss a Government servant. In such a situation, the word authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed in my view will mean that the authority who has power to appoint will also include the power to dismiss, otherwise, it will lead to an absurd situation in view of sub-clause (b) of Article 311(2) which uses the phrase 'the authority Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU empowered to dismiss or remove'.
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936,
49. After harmonizing both the provisions, in my view, the true import will [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 be that the authority, who has an authority to appoint a Government servant, will also have the authority to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank.
50. In that view of the matter, the reference is replied in the terms that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who was/is the appointing authority, is 12 OA 21/0079/2020 also vested with the right to dismiss, terminate and reduce in rank and the expression appointing authority and the authority which appointed would mean and construe the same, inasmuch as, the appointing authority, who has been conferred with the power to appoint will also have the authority to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank XI. In view of the above legal authentication, the competency of the Sr. DCM in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement is in order. The above discussion has been taken assuming that the applicant is the probationary ticket collector and the appointing authority is CPO. However, on the promotion of the applicant as Dy. CTI, the appointing authority has changed to that of a JAG rank office and in the changed scenario, the contention about the competency of the disciplinary authority holds no water. We undertook the above discussions to drive home the point that the appointing authority is not only the one who issued the offer of appointment but others who are identified as Appointing Authority under the statutory rules.
Xxx xxx XIV. By going through the OA, through and through, we gained the impression that the applicant has labored on technical aspects rather than defending himself on the substantive issue as to why he did not issue the receipt for Rs.1200/-, as is expected under the Rules. Substantive justice prevails over technical justice as observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State Rep By Inspector Of Police, CBI vs M Subrahmanyam on 7 May, 2019 in Crl. Appeal No(s). 853 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2133 of 2019):
"9. The failure to bring the authorisation on record, as observed, was more a matter of procedure, which is but a handmaid of justice. Substantive justice must always prevail over procedural or technical justice. To hold that failure to explain delay in a procedural matter would operate as res judicata will be a travesty of justice considering that the present is a matter relating to corruption in public life by holder of a public post. The rights of an accused are undoubtedly important, but so is the rule of law and societal interest in ensuring that an alleged offender be subjected to the laws of the land in the larger public interest. To put the rights of an accused at a higher pedestal and to make the rule of law and societal interest in prevention of crime, subservient to the same cannot be considered as dispensation of justice. A balance therefore has to be struck. A procedural lapse cannot be placed at par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law."
XV. In cases of alleged corruption, procedural irregularities should not take the centre stage and are to be ignored as observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Garg vs State (Govt. Of National Capital on 27 November, 2019 Crl. Appeal No. 1781 of 2009.
Xxx xxxx Even in Moni Shankar v. Union of India, (2008) 3 SCC 484, the Hon‟ble Apex court, referring to its own judgment in Chief commercial Manger v Ratnam, has observed that para 704/705 of Vigilance Manual which were later changed as 306/307, are though procedural in nature, their infringement has to be looked from the perspective of total violation and other factors."
13. On a careful consideration of the above order of this Tribunal in Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 juxtaposition with the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the present case is covered by the said order. As quoted in the order of 13 OA 21/0079/2020 this Tribunal in OA No. 1515/2014, extracted supra, in cases of alleged corruption, procedural irregularities should not take the centre stage and are to be ignored as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Garg vs State (Govt. Of National Capital Territory of Delhi).
14. We have also perused the judgments relied upon by the applicant and none of the judgments have dealt with the Schedule of Powers and therefore, the judgments relied upon by the applicant are not applicable in the present matter.
15. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the OA. The OA is accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
//evr//
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, [email protected], CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.03.04 11:06:43+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0