Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sheeba Abraham Anbu vs M/O Defence on 16 September, 2019
i OA Wo. 15/2013CENTRAL ADMINIS STRATIVE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAT BENCH, MUMBAT @.A.No.15/2013 Dated. this Monday the 16 day of September, 2019. Coram: Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative} . R. oN. Singh, Member (Judicial). i. emt. Sheehe aAbrahan Anbu, Former Ward Sahayika,-:
INES Patanitali, Naval Base, Karwar, Resident of ;
evo. 3. Abraham Anbu, Defence Civilian Quarters No. P/211/9, Manger Hill, Varunapuri, Goa-4do3 802.
( By Advocate Ms. Vaishali Agane ). Versus Union of India through the recratary, Ministry of Defence, oom No.i98, Soukh Block, New Delhi-1ioO dil.
jt 4 i on G * is ih G ns ms Oo i $ ry pong ~ fete BS mr or mt @ m4 er Ry oh.
QO.
a ry iD fh OL fy ts of Sg aon iD ry th 8 MO C3 i yO 2 ps ~ 23 re a. jee a fet fet i 7 be @ C ch oct Or fu ry bet La re foot Fee cen, ¢ ed 4 go4 beg woe on Villian Wing, Senabhavan,-
OD bh % &% 2 © 3 a
35) eH " CF @ th Co io o Cera @ A % 0 @ bo opp }s-
i et jens & icer Commanding- adquarters, Qn tae fee 5S @ ts fot st cmmnand, nahi d Bhagat Sangh Road,
4. The Commanding Officer, INHS Patanjali, Naval Base, Rarwar-Sei 308. «oes Respondents. { By Advocate ShriN. &. |" Rajpurohit and Ms. gd. RK, "Rehel }.
¥) OANO. 15/2013 ped Order reserved on: 11.06.2019 Order delivered on: {4.29-20)4 OR DE R Per : Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member {A} ee omit. Shesba Abraham Anbu, filled this OA on ~*~ 10.09,2012, seeking quashing and setting aside of which has been upheld in review by Chief of Personnel, Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence {Navy} (DCP), Mew Delhi vide order dated 23.08.2011. She seexs reinstatement in service with full back wages From the date of dismissal ¥frem- fie time.
ee service till reinstatement within a spec
2. Summarized facts: -
2{a). The applicant has stated that she was * Base, Karwar by Chief Staff Officer {Personnel and Administration}, Headquarters, Western Naval Command, Mumbai vide apooiniment order dated 12.10.2006. That order was signed for Chief Staff 33 by beg oo ine?
pe ® ity Officer (Personnel and Administratio Officer. This appointment was as per the sanction of et ated 30 OA No. 15/2013 was. fo be on probation for 02 years from the date of joining of duty and during the period of probation é % her service might be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reasons. After completion of the probation period satisfactorily she would be continued on appointment and liable. for service at any place in India. She joined duty on 66.11.2006, completed her prohation on 05.11.2008 and continued tt, in service in terms of the appointment order. She further states that it indicated satisfactory completion of probation as there was no provision in the. appointment order for any extension cf her 2ica}. Despite the above facts, she claims that her service was terminated vide order dated 15.07.2016 by Administrative Officer, Command Civilian Personnel Officer and not by the Appointing Authority: i.e. Chief Staff Officer (Personnel and y On}; Headquarters, Western Naval fe-
Boministrat 2 Command. This order was stated to be issued in term in ' of provision in para-3 of her appointment order
-dabed 12.10.2006 and in terms of the powers assigned o 3 esd ! ts wm @ B ha hi ( ts Q a} KE as) " 1 & 5 Ci @ u os wv x i # rd YY. 6 ood '2 " 3 a Ae 4 ah " . bE ef 43 a; vot 3) © i Gh tas bx. "ng th yg "5 . po i Og 3 a a a 3 i Po DB es + ¢ ; ie 4 cc Gi Wy at bent La oe . wheal et rot in 5 al e ' hed & be rd cy on . ad . ted rcs ' i Os wv "O Ee ay £3 " e wd vt Os i S i> Bo h . Os ra @ S ed Ht oa ne 13 G SG & cn ye 8) iy eee ord o 5 ™ S) A i be ~ 4 Ma wn Q , ws bea wl " thy b> ao <4 ct " m 6h 4 g@ AG z 4 ny rt wed et $2 is? ve 43 a re a in . red 4 wed i = uO i i "ed t Ch, we Q ea 0) ed, wer} fl 3 "oD oy ba 124 i ca wv y a ve ' bey oe a ip bd in Ages we £3 ae iB Mf is Q hd 35 wha "<4 ; a oe ane Ww 3 Fes 43 € 4) a . ot at in ve ti KS a ay x tm ord i ed had whe 65h x ord of ey go i x x Se har a ee 5 i Bowyrs wah wey z 4 $4 @ ths { ; G3 4 3 EA Pe) 33 at a iv. a ; : re Ce aed } 4 a a oe ' 44 us rf ;
a 5.4 a 3, a 2 f "| ort Oty é ' a 2a T ea
i) G3 HM Ze a 4 .
ae ' £ 3 Sg? be + fe vt 44 BB 2 i a 5 43 "CS oh, Ct Pa 2 i al % ved a £4 O eo Fe eg sca aged ty 4 uy 4 vd ® og) "it 1 q! og = on A 03 ao c " ° . ; A Og 4 . Dd se ao 4 os 33 4 x by . fe M4 g oS ire 43 h. See ed ! go we c ct a G a e hed, he * 3 ang 4 4 ;
4 z 44 w is OANo.15/ 2013 him under Rule-24 read with Rule-27 of ccs (CCA) Rules-1965 confirmed the order dated 15.07.2910 terminating the apelicant's service {Annex A-7?}. The Appellate Authority referred to termination of her having been issued by hee Appointing Authority i.e. Chief Staff Officer (Personnel and Administration) estern Naval Command, Mumbai. However, she claims that both these -- Statements are wrong pecause termination of her' service was mot during her probation period and that order of termination was not signed by the Chief.Staff Officer (Personnel anc 2{£). The Appellate Authority also stated the applicant's performance was not found satiefectory by her superiors as she remained abssant from duty for more than 60 days during the probation period i i a Fe a ~ fs 60} a Bs tt of if i > "e QD oS i 5 and was found te be arqument oS
a) mr ke i?) le w $9 i Se co-operative with her colleagues and su did not. possess the temr erament required of a Ward > 3 Sahayika of. Armed POCrCes Medic ail Service Hospita ro Therefore, it was further mentioned by the Appellate Authority that the action of the Appointing 3 ae _, oes i Bach edd © yee tba Authority was within kis Jurisdiction invoking womyerd af iam tory t $day ORE Sy Sd ; ZL es Tm f "
PEOVASLION COMCAalned in the Miniatry of Heme Affairs were yralsed for the ficst time, were without any substance and vague except the charge of her having remained unauthorizedly absent from duty fer more than 60 days during the .prebation period. This charge was also patently false and baseless. In ansence of those grounds raised before the erder of termination of her service, she was net provided an opportunity fo ccunter/rebut them. Had they been raised at~least in the order of termination, they 4 could have been challenged in the appeal. Thus they _ Ba were beyond the purview of the Appellate Authority re > whose scope was restrichad to the issue raised i the. memorandum of appeal. The applicant has furthe stated that the the- Efice Memorandums referred to by the Appellate Authority in its order were. also superfluous as the order of termination was issued * *¢ os ib ry invoking terms contained in para~3 . of appointment order.
2th). On being aggrieved by the order of the 7 OA No. 15/2013 Appellate Authority, the applicant filed review LES (CCA) Rules-1965 before the Chief £ Personnel, Integrated mentioning therein the issue of her wrongful terntination and pointing out that the ¢rder of her.
% service was void which had not bee poe termination fron oo ws 93 fe iB
a) endorsed by the Appointing Authority. She mh on the ordar.o ® he < by iD in % Dp Ch.
2. ss Yr rr iy $y 7 ct i "
om ;
i pean oy a] Ci cr cS by & termination of her services.
ity rh Chie Q rt or wm
21). By order dated 23.08.2011, 4 Personne , .integrated -- Heacquart ters, | Ministry Q Defence (Navy), New pelhi, rejected her review petition mentioning that the assessment report after O3 years of extended probation period rendered her unfit and therefore the termination an the Appointing Authority did met call for interference.
it Was alse. contended that the issue raised py the "review petition had oa decided by the Appointing Authority, as there was ne infirmity in signing of the cermination order by the Command Civilian Personnel Officer. Therefore, this OA has been filed. Ag a § OA No. 15/2013
3. Contentions of the parties: -
% a fat ds y mat abd te i 5 4 oy 2 x in the OA, rejoinder, additional rejoinder and * NL As x, z oan ae % on < +t ' é teh ts peve TF ry re during the hearing on 11.06.2013, the appiicant and ner counsel have contended thear-:-
3 {a). the Appellate Authority in its order first time about unsatisfactory performance of the applicant mentioning that she had been appointed on probation of two years and due to her unsatisfactory nerformance her probation period was extended for m7 One More year i.e. upto O5.21.2009; dn her assessment report, her Service during the 03 years of probation had been below satisfactory: she nardly showed improvement in her attitude towards her du es even during the extended probation; she had been yery reluctant in accepting her duties, there were regular incidents of her having arguments with her colleagues and Departmental Officers; her attitude nad a very damoralizing eftect on Ch tf) 5 rm fe fs = iB fo o n oy (5 {5 pyr 131 oe $5 Ch go D
3) ry 3 <3 nh be } 1 fee 3 SL oS bh Sahayikas anc all kinds of leave, off duty, excuses and she had been apprised on varicus occasions about her performance both verbally and through warning letters and show cause mobice:9 OA No. 15/2013
3{b). the inetances mentioned by the Reviewl ;
sez Authority about her unsatisfactory performance were without any spec ifica reasons. Her grievance had sliso Hbsen deslt with in a casual .manner and she was removed fro m service wit mhout due sanction of Law, te ct cr hy % Sy
a) fee ie) it & Ch mM et Su ay % ® ty {B it 3S feed tii i ™ the reasons given although her probation period was -extended she ry remained in the service, and she was. granted child X mare leave which was extended even after. November 3 {a). in her first ACR, assessment by the Executive Officer Surg. Lk. Commander Rashmi Agarwal must have been 'very goad?, if not better. A copy of her assessment report -from November 2006 to Julv Information Act. The applicant's spouse is a defence civilian working as Fireman with Naval Armament Depot, Chicalim, Goa. Her son was diagnosed with 'Nephrotic Syndrome', a condition affecting kidney, continuous treatment and special care. Inspite of her husband being costed with Naval Armament. Depot, Chicalim, Goa, she kept her children with her at 10 . OA No. 15/2013 night duty but chat exemption was rejected and then she carried cut the duty -aasiqned to her. Her age 4 _ Nan ey aye an: we a] ae tw 2 ~ J Orficer had recommended the transfer. This rejection of her request for transfer to Goa was not as per 3id). On 13.09.2008, the Commanding Officer f cr alleged certain short. comings in .the agcplican work during the probation period which was because she had not been qtanted exemption from night duty.
However, the applicant did not reply to that Letter of the Commanding Officer. The show cause notic @ tft & My and warning letters were issued to her after h x extended probation per WAS over except the one oh.
"
VV fete dated 13.01.2003; Bie). since her appointment order. mentioned that x.
from. the 3 ct pe oO
a) by dD ry cS Ps was i to rR in she was to be on proba date of her joining duty, the claim of the respondents about extension of her probation period. void. There is "no record of extension of he prebation period and this has been mentioned for the TY OA No. t5/2013 first time only in the order of the Reviewing Authority which means her continuation in service respondents inthe Apgellate Order and Reviewing Order have mo merits, the GA should be allowed; rh 3 (8). as per the letter of April 2009, the applicant's probation was extended only for one year it. gat Over on om 06.11.2008 0 and 9 therefor (3 be 06.11.2003. Thereafter the applicant was desmed te have been confirmed in her serv rice; and 3 SUD. the termination .of applicant's service has x bean issued not by the Appointing Authority but only vyilian Personnel Officer vide letter dated bate CL 15.07.2010. That order did net disclose any reason about the" applicant's unsatisfactory performance, ghich was mentioned oniy ain. the order of the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority. The period of probation of 02 years was wrongly mentioned by the Appointing Authority in the. appointment letter because as per the OM cated 26.04.1989, the probation period should have been enly of one year which the applicant completed or QA No. 15/2013 wept ats 3 Pa 43 Bd, it af C3 aN} wt AO [ae tend x & o AS + hee Lcan .
AON « her probat of Ory si exten about . x Wea, Oy god 6 + i = 'be x A shoul hearing, i :
ved hg cn tea Gel ay niet C the 3(h).
ot ak Ward COMMa rs ons aval X x in ey hk A > 3 Sa 3 & a he * Service a of n atior oe Y iw =r?
Sahayika and te ont $4 p Oss G m end ved on} o merely ¢ ye .
ny A mer x fet ~ Th moO ge > ' A de.
a"
ct ou p 3 a owle ry Kr x, n Re 2 a 2 Lt & Ne nantioned abou and * CAO Lee hw erefore, conditions serv proba ed ne {3 GA No. 15/2013 Officers and Commanding Officer... Vide latter dated 08.04.2009 her probation of 02 years was extended by Karwar to inform the applicant in writing about extension of her probation by 01 year from O6.11.2008 and also for making necessary entries in 3{i).- as per the. assessment reports | aval able on record, the applicant had been assessed for tha entire period of O02 years and extended period of O14 year upto 05.11.2905. As per this assessment, tha ig o Uf applicant was found wanting in her attitude towaz Ae hs ya uw ih superiors, $s Was uncocperative and net punctual, Q. ct she had arg gumentative temperament and refuse a perform the allotted duties, and she demanded duty as per her. cholce .and convenience. As . the probation period was extended for one more year beyond the normal pericad of the twa years to observe her performance. But she did net show any improvement . even during othe extended probation ig OA No. 15201 <, ay een fo Fey anaes a OY Fans " ay her appointment order dated 12.10.2006, she was directed to actually reported on duty. ML (O6.11.2006, which showed her casual attitude towards her duty. order te give the applicant additional period for improving her performance, her probation was extended by Ol year but fu urther axtension of probation beyond 03 years is not permissible. and therefore action was taken te terminate her service; 3(k). the applicant remained in service upta 15.07.2010, for which she has been paid ali due pay and allowances and child care leave as per the applicable service rules. She had a medical treatment.:
3 Ub). | during her probation the applicant was involved in altercation and fight with ether Ward Sahayikas and indulged .in altercation with Prine pal Matron. This incident Was reported to the Headquarters, Flaq Officer, Karnataka Naval Area 13 OANO.15/2013 vide letter dated 24.09.2008 leading to issuance of Warning letter to her . on 1¢d.i2l.2oos. Ample opportunities, verbal and written warnings were issued to the apolicant for imorovement> rebation period 3 3m. her contention that the had not been extended is veid, false and misleading. As per the MHA "OM dated 15.04.1956, procedure has been prescribed for dealing with probation or the stafr and continuation in service even after expiry o A ~ fae + 3
-
tS a ct ws ta int;
Os
1) rt G rt a ee i CO om oh ct he a Pa o Fh rr oy es G tt po g i 5 vr im the present case the completion of probation by the applicant was not confirmed till her service was terminated in Suly 2010
3). the Appeal and Review Petition of the
-applicant were rejected after vhorough examination of her record by. Headquarters, Western Naval Command nd 'Integrated "He adquarters, fe New Delhi, respectively. Due to che appli cant's ar rgumentative, aggressive and uncooperative -behavier with colleagues. and seniors, ans lack of proper OA No. 15/2013 16 toe @ at da per the a8 3 (¢@) .
o "eno! For onducting @ oe Yd whee.
apg "ed probation £ z ake completion med on contir she continued wat 4 ASN ¢ made by Laims U oP of ted td action @ wy the n by Hie baw Cee Was dismissed.
RR S id b i OU oe Analysis and Cenclusions:~-
4. with ~ oe) £ Bran oy oy SA ¥e rejoinder es;
annex $4 To G respondents. the te Vo t? . OA No. 15/2013 the. disciplinary proceedings made available by the respondents. . After analyzing al] these, our conclusions are as follows; 4(b). The . claim .cf the applicant that her. termination order dated 23.07.2010 was issued by an respondents, the termination of her service had bean x proved by the Competent Authority i.e. the Chief 3 Stari Officer (Personnel and Administration} anid the. ce) Chief Administrative Officer, Command Civilian Personnel Officer only communicated it to the applicant. That order very clearly mentioned this. fact.
4ic). The claim of the anpolicant that she was not aware of exten:
| of ion of her probation by Cl year and that there was no such provision to extend her probation in her appointment order dated 12.10.2006, is also not .justified. As explained by the Tespondents, as per the applicable relevant rules oF her continuous fe wD @ Oo.
a m i ree C governing probation unsatisfactory performance, her probation was extend nm OG.11.2008 vide order issued in * by O1 year fro ry - bot 0 o 4.3 M3 ky 4 . rae 0] os Co 3 4 fut wo ~ be os on @. Ba) 44 3 qs a @ ae «rt yp cS a o wy Ba Sa @ 43 a 6 a o na & a 3 os) a) 43 mt "4 45 ra wt wm ot ye wd THe & oS 8 vend '4 Q e 5 " i) i set q ~ ht 44 ee ead GS o i ta Hod 5 & te 72 rg be 3 , O bs 2 ae a o a4. QD Ry G 3 @ O cs ad As ~ ra nee.
a3 r cs) : ot x rot ved o ted 4 4 oO 73 od ms ase rd 4 r mn ons Pe j 0 iL gt ics] * me i 2 i e B Ahead ai ey Le 6 4 ay 7 oO el o a a aw iw ot ' * } es: 5 - os ha arf te & MM A ct ® SH oa Q "ed " be a Lo 2) o Es vt 53 @ G @ O ro 44 goon wm pa 4 af x «et 5 OO @ G4 oY wd a " at ged rt i eo 6 ™ OD oo om BO gE a oy f me a is) ot oO wy oS 4 bt ne oC Oo G S the " a seed ® ee) @ ® a vi ow ba 2 ge mM 8 , ot GQ oc oat @ & & £ Gg EF at @ nw & a? we Fs " oh, vw rat rot a 43 G bet Oh a ip : wD E ard Sy a, ' GS & ual D & Os rd 4 S ah 6 , di 6 n 4 O 2 eat uo ow & gt or ~ 2 a eS wed a 3 4 3 a ® " i wi * "ot St a i . Se pn & gy fe 7 @ & & 9 B&B @ 2 :
ve OG a 8 @ ~ 8 GO 4 ww eo © 37 0 6mlhlUOUlU $4 4 ce a a O 44 mo r) 4 wed "ay o 43. rf oO QO " 3 ° ot 43 'td Ay ee - He gg oa a4 Joa Bb ZB cond "s fa im w on c 6 co $4 OQ 5. ig ei oes ea ve os vi . id Q o @ a as 5 ia LD ns) a 5 rene 0 'a Ou i 3 3 2 ee oy ef 2 et iy 4 3 me oo W " Cy 3 w o " Add EB hh G 8 o 4a od a ved ec to os fe 8 a Mo w o * ae a5 tS a "7 @ oy 44 6 ont C ved n Re) at aS c3 @ i bg G ca wm A @ wd G 6 @ uo 0 as o $3 i 5 3 Q hy @ ee 42 rt a re i ot rt vy 2 2 ved 1s) oy a if ge x M o Chi y . 4 om. bd 4 by "el a ¢ as ro 43 $$ a a) . 3 @ ved rf eh L's) 4d Md Re ref DB CG om. & ii m% o Mok G wh @ nm q @ a} i Pa! bf 5 wy & Go Oo 13 B c 43 ns u w A a < :
$3 Bo yy i 6 ma ed to . he : & O. 4 AS io ty, a © ot hy 3] on oY O see] by ved @ > td bs "a 9) ord GO @ 4 a wn ad ip 43 os al bs 3 ey 4 ta a eo +5 me 6 # OO Tf @ ow a nn ae yoUfM UB ~ % "oD & Of & wb ree ee LS, oH Ct An oO bf at . oes 3] xy 4 a cs ee vo 3 E4 ed Oo GO mw Ko ey Mm 8 GC @G gn FR oO @ ej oan $3 4 ft ge O SB Dt mS M4 cogs a rs ' o th & Q a eo o mo td g oe 14 CR ert owt oo GS G6 GG DG % 5g GC 33 4 sa gi 43 tH o QO o ' O u vet 43 ft c rd » o Q rs beh of) rf Eg ' + Oo 4 A 4d & wy @ @ ome bd ee vt O be 4 ed oe z GH 43 2, a 4 Ho gg mf OG wy he ' & @ OO 8 @ BH. os y Oo od Tei m "ee QO ha Go # a o Ww Ch ser fea C G @ cS # a QD "3 & @ a {3 Oh 4 FY, w Li a06) as ag ie) a ae) bt we » RIQKLoers or ng stats ether at argumentative temperament and uncooperative attitude 'S by including the altercation with the other Ward Sahayikas* and Principal Matron being correct, we 'find that the OR has no merits. The order of her termina tion issued by the Competent Respondent.
Authority was fully justified, So ware the orders (of the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority.
4(£) Since the applicant continued on proeoation L continued unsatisfactory performance, which have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority in their respective orders.
Therefore, the eclains and conmtentions Of the applicant about these orders being bad in law are retected. The orders issued by the respondents are
5. _Deersion:i-
+ The OA is dismissed. No costs. yo "
ee we a (RN. s¥igh) tae. Bhagwan sabkly Member {7} Member (A) af. .
SOPh)F