Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K. Venkata Subba Rao vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana Reported In ... on 30 March, 2009
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD O.A. 204/2009 Date of order: 30-03-2009 Between: K. Venkata Subba Rao, General Manager (HRD), O/o. Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom, Door Sanchar Bhavan, Hyderabad-1. ... Applicant A N D 1. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Sanchar Bhavan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 1. 2. Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Sanchar Bhavan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 1. 3. The Director, Central Vigilance Commission, Satharkatha Bhavan, GPO Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi 110023. 4. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited rep by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Harischandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi - 1. ... Respondents Counsel for the applicant : Dr. A. Raghu Kumar Counsel for the respondents 1-3 : Mr. I. Koti Reddy Counsel for the respondent 4 : Mr. M.C. Jacob C O R A M : THE HON'BLE MRS. BHARATI RAY, MEMBER (J) THE HON'BLE MR. HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER(A) O R D E R
(Per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (J) This application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following relief :
To call for the records pertaining to the Memo No.8/8/2008-Vig.II dated 28.01.2009 and Memo No. 8/8/2008-Vig.II dated 30.6.2008, and quash and set aside the same as the same are resulting out of non-consideration and illegal consideration and suppression of the statutory rules in force at the relevant point of time by the 1st and 2nd respondents and also resulting out of illegal advice tendered by the 3rd respondent in view of non-placement of actual record before him when action of the applicant in approving insertion of additional Marathi Information pages in English Telephone Directory in the year 02003, was well within the powers of the applicant as General Manager Telecom District, Latur in terms of later instructions of the BSNL Corporate office with the approval of Board contained in Lr. No. 6-15/2000-EB dated 04.10.2001 by holding the impugned memo per se illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and the extant rules in force at the relevant point of time.
2. We have heard Dr. A. Raghu Kumar learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. I. Koti Reddy for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. M.C. Jacob for respondent No.4. We have also gone through the facts of the case and material papers placed before us.
3. The applicant is working as General Manager, Telecom Traffic Office of Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom, Hyderabad. The applicant was served with a charge memo on 01.08.2008 with the following article of charage:
Article -I That Sri K. Venkata Subba Rao was functioning as GMTD, Latur during the year 2003. He while working as above approved insertion of additional marathi information pages in english telephone director @ 13 paise page/copy against the approved rates of Rs.8/- per copy and agreed vide agreement dated 15.01.1999 at extra cost of apprx. Rs.5,91,500/- without following dept. guidelines of the DOT and BSNL in this regard thereby causing pecuniary loss to the department.
Thus, by his aforesaid act, Sri K. Venkata Subba Rao, violated the provision of Rule 60 of FHB Vol.I and Rule 6 of GFR and instructions contained in the DOT's letter No.1-3/98-PHP dated 27/11/98 and hence failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby contravened the Rule 3(1)(i),(ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4. Questioning the charge memo the applicant approached this Tribunal earlier by filing OA No. 496/2008 contending that the applicant has got full powers to insert Marati information in the English Telephone Directory without permission of Chief General Manager as per letter No. 6-15/2000-EB dated 04.10.2001 and that certain powers delegated to the applicant have not been brought to the notice of the Vigilance Committee and to the Ministry and therefore if the correct information was fed to the Vigilance Committee and Ministry the charge memo would not have been issued. This Tribunal disposed of the OA on 19-08-2008 as under :
"We have perused the contents of the application and also the documents filed along with the application. We are of the considered view that this Tribunal at this stage cannot go into the merits of the case and it can be disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the applicant to submit a detailed explanation within 10 days from this date raising all the contentions raised in this application and also furnish the documents on which the applicant proposed to rely in support of his contentions that he has got powers, and on such submitting the explanation the disciplinary authority shall consider the explanation and the contentions raised in the present application whose copy also shall be annexed to the explanation before taking further decision in the matter viz. appointing an enquiry officer. "
5. In pursuance to the said order of the Tribunal the applicant submitted his representation dated 16.09.2008 to the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure A-VIII to the OA. The disciplinary authority vide letter dated 28.01.2009 disposed of the representation of the applicant (supra) copy of which is enclosed as Annexure A-I to the OA. Questioning the said letter of the disciplinary authority the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for the aforesaid relief.
6. It is seen from the material papers enclosed along with the OA that the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer appointed earlier vide order dated 01/10/2008 but the same had been withdrawn by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 23-1-2009 and he has considered the representation of the applicant as directed by the Tribunal. Competency of disciplinary authority has not been questioned by the applicant. It is not the case of the applicant that the charges are vague. A plain reading of the charge would show that there is no vagueness in the charge.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant Dr. A. Raghu Kumar, argued strenuously that the charges are not legal. Learned counsel for R-4 Mr. M.C. Jacob took the objection of maintainability of the application at this stage inasmuch as the grounds taken by the applicant in this OA would show that the applicant has questioned the correctness of the charge framed against the applicant which cannot be decided by the Tribunal at this stage. The applicant has several remedies to exhaust during the disciplinary proceedings before approaching the Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in 2007 AIR SCW 607 and submitted that in rare case the Tribunal can entertain the application at this stage when the charges are illegal. From the judgment we find that it was a case where the Apex Court has said that "in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High court should not interfere in such matter". We have also observed that in the said case the learned counsel for the respondent before the High Court submitted that the charges levelled against the charged employee had been enquired into earlier and he had been exonerated of the charge in an earlier proceeding, therefore the charge memo impugned therein,would amount to double jeopardy and was therefore illegal. However, the Apex Court in that case found that the charge levelled against the employee had not been enquired into earlier and that he has not been exonerated of the charge framed against him and therefore allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and Ors. It is not the case of the applicant here that the authority which has issued the impugned charge memo is not competent or the charges are vague. It is also not the case of the applicant that he had already been exonerated of the charges framed against him in the present charge memo. In this context, it will not be out of place to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy. Inspector General of Police vs. K.S. Swaminathan reported in 1997 SCC (L&S) 480 where the Apex Court has held that Examining the correctness of charges, particularly at the stage of framing of charges is beyond the scope of judicial review.
9. In view of the above legal position and facts and circumstances of the case and that the charges are not vague and the competency of the disciplinary authority is not questioned, we are of the view that this application is not maintainable at this stage.
10. OA is accordingly dismissed as premature with no order as to costs.
(HRIDAY NARAIN) (BHARATI RAY)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER(J)