Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
George Varghese vs Union Of India Represented By Its ... on 20 September, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.11/12
Thursday this the 20th day of September 2012
C O R A M :
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
George Varghese,
Thiruvinal House, Anandapally,
P.O.Adoor, Pathanamthitta District. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.C.Rajendran)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Union Public Service Commission
represented by its Secretary, Shajahan Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
3. The Selection Committee for Indian Forest Service
represented by its Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
New Delhi - 110 003.
4. State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.
5. The Principal Secretary, Forest and Wild Life,
Government of Kerala, Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram - 1.
6. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Forest Head Quarters, Vazhuthakkad,
Thiruvananthapuram - 14.
7. Sri.Sathees Williams, S/o.F.C.Williams,
Retired Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Thalasseri P.O., Kannur District.
8. Sri.M.N.Muraleedharan,
Prabhakaram, Madamon,
Vadasserikkara P.O., Pathanamthitta.
9. Sri.O.Jaayarajan,
Karthika House, No.1/D Generals Road,
Payyanbalam, Kannur - 670 003.
10. S.Janardhanan,
Deputy Conservator of Forest (NC) (Retired),
Residing at T.C.21/259(2),
Aswathi, Judge Road, Karamana P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 002. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.Millu Dandapani,ACGSC [R1],
Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Nodal Counsel [R2-3],
Mr.M.Rajeev,GP [R4-6], Mr.S.Radhakrishnan [R7], Mr.Jaykar.K.S. [R8],
Mr.P.K.Manojkumar [R9] & Mr.S.Sujin [R10])
This application having been heard on 7th September 2012 this
Tribunal on 20th September 2012 delivered the following :-
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr.K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant joined the State Forest Department as Forest Ranger Officer on 4.11.1979. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest on 19.3.1996 in the State Forest Service. He has retired as Deputy Conservator of Forests on 29.2.2008. He has filed this Original Application to quash the IFS select list notification dated 4th July 2012 for the year 2007 (A), 2008 and 2009 and also to recast Annexure A-9 showing the details of penalties imposed on officers in the zone of consideration during the last 10 years ending on 1.1.2007 as it is not duly showing the relative position of the candidates so that the U.P.S.C. is disabled to make the right selection of the best among the candidates for the select list year 2007 (A). As there was no minor penalty or any other penalty imposed against him as defined in Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules 1960 the recovery ordered from him which is not a penalty should have been excluded from Annexure A-9.
2. The applicant contended as follows : The applicant was eligible for consideration for selection to the IFS for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. He had been excluded intentionally to favour some others. Annexure A-9 for the select list for the year 2007 (A) did not contain correct information as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India. The applicant became eligible for consideration for promotion for the year 2007 which was styled as 2007 (A).
3. In the reply statement filed on behalf of 2nd and 3rd respondents, it was submitted that the applicant was eligible to be considered for the year 2007 A only. On noticing that complete factual position regarding penalties imposed against eligible officers, the meeting of SCM held on 3.10.2011 was reconvened on 14.5.2012 after receipt of fresh information. The recommendations of the SCM are still not finalised.
4. Respondents No.4-6 in their reply statement submitted that the memo of charges was issued to the applicant under Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules, 1960 on 25.8.2004 when the applicant was in the State Forest Service. The show cause was subsequently issued to him on 3.1.2006 and the disciplinary case was finalized as per order No.B3- 27327/2001 dated 7.6.2008 for recovering the loss to Government from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity since he had retired from service on 29.2.2008. The loss was recovered from his DCRG because the penalty was imposed on him on 7.6.2008 ie. after his retirement. For a pensioner, the recovery from DCRG is a penalty. Therefore, the same was included in the details of penalties imposed on officers during the last 10 years for the year 2007 (A). The Selection Committee meeting held on 3.10.2011 for considering promotion as State Forest Service of IFS of Kerala Cadre against the vacancies which arose during the years 2007 A, 2008 and 2009 was reconvened on 14.5.2012 due to factual inaccuracy in the information/document earlier furnished by the State Government. The recommendations of the reconvened SCM are yet to be finalized as observations of the State Government and that of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests are awaited.
5. The 7th respondent submitted that the competent authority had adopted a very sympathetic attitude on the ground that the applicant had already retired from service and decided to restrict the punishment to recover the amount of Rs.37176/- from the DCRG of the applicant. The applicant was found guilty by the competent authority.
6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The main prayer of the applicant is to declare that there is no penalty imposed on him as per Kerala Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1960. All other prayers are consequential relief. The applicant had admitted that during 1994-1995 while he was working as Forest Ranger Officer (NGO period) there was a charge sheet as per Annexure A-8. The case of the applicant is that disciplinary authority finalized the departmental inquiry against him without imposing any penalty as per Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules, 1960. But the fact is that the disciplinary authority had ordered recovery of Rs.37176/- from his DCRG. According to the applicant this does not amount to a penalty under Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules 1960, it is only a liability which is incidental to the duties of a Government servant. As per order No.B3-27327/2001 dated 7.6.2008 there is a loss of Rs.37176/- to the Government as he failed to assess the actual quantity of gully plugging works in 1994 resulting in excess payment. It is quite clear that the recovery from the applicant is not a simple recovery like recovery of excess payment. He was issued memo of charges and disciplinary action was taken against him after considering his representation. The disciplinary action was concluded by recovery of Rs.37176/- from his DCRG. The recovery of loss from pay is covered under the minor penalties mentioned in the Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules 1960. As the applicant had retired on 29.2.2008, no recovery was possible from pay as on 7.6.2008 but his DCRG was available. It is only hyper technical to say that the recovery was not from pay, since the recovery was from DCRG, it is not a penalty under the Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules, 1960. The word `penalty' is not mentioned in the aforesaid order. But the applicant was not exonerated on the conclusion of the disciplinary action against him. The loss of Rs.37176/- caused to the Government on account of the lapse on the part of the applicant was recovered from his DCRG. This recovery is in effect a penalty though it is not stated so in the order dated 7.6.2008. The respondents will not be truthful if they do not bring this recovery to the notice of the U.P.S.C.
7. It is mere assumption on the part of the applicant that he is more meritorious than other officers included in the zone of consideration. He has been considered against the vacancies in 2007 A. Relative merit of the candidates is to be determined by the U.P.S.C.
8. We do not find the entry made in the Annexure A-9 in the penalty column of the applicant wrong. Hence, the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 20th day of September 2012)
K.GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp