M.Chelladurai vs Union Of India on 15 June, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M.Chelladurai vs Union Of India on 15 June, 2017

This Writ Petition is directed against the order and Judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai in O.A.No.837 of 2014, which in turn was instituted by the writ petitioner challenging the validity of the charge sheet dated 10.11.2010, the order of punishment dated 29.01.2013 as well as the rejection of Appeal dated 30.04.2014.

2. The writ petitioner was working in the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (in short 'CVRDE'), one of the Establishments under the Defence Research Development Organization, (in short 'DRDO'). The writ petitioner appears to have made some complaints against the Director of CVRDE to the Central Vigilance Commission. He perceives that because of his complaints lodged with the Central Vigilance Commission, as a retaliatory measure, he has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings by drawing a charge sheet comprising of five articles of charges on 10.11.2010. Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, a major penalty of reduction to the lower grade of Senior Technical Assistant 'B' was imposed on him on 29.01.2013 and the Appeal preferred there against was rejected on 30.04.2014. Hence, calling in question entire disciplinary proceedings, the writ petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by instituting O.A.No.837 of 2014. Since the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, by its order 05.12.2014 rejected the said O.A.No.837 of 2014, finding no merit therein, the present writ petition is instituted.

3. Heard Sri.Paul Ravikumar, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri.Sengotuvel, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

4.It is urged before us by Mr.Paul Ravikumar, learned Senior Counsel that since the writ petitioner being a very sincere employee, lodged a compliant to the CVC against certain misdeeds of the Director of CVRDE, and hence he has been subjected to hostile treatment and harassed by slapping charges which are exfacie unjust and unsustainable. The allegations behind the charges were all trumped up. Since the writ petitioner is a lowly paid employee of the Defence Research Development Organization, he is sought to be victimized and harassed. The disciplinary proceedings have been conducted, according to Sri.Paul Ravikumar, in violation of the procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, and also in violation of the basic principles of natural justice and no fair and reasonable opportunity has been accorded to the writ petitioner to offer his defence. Explaining the said contention Sri.Paul Ravikumar would submit that the Charge Sheet dated 10.11.2010 (placed at page 43 of the accompanying paper book in Annexure I) has listed out 5 separate and distinct articles of charges, whereas the Annexure II thereof contains the imputations and in Annexure III, the list of documents by which the articles of charges framed against the writ petitioner are proposed to be sustained are listed out. However, copies of some of those documents have not been furnished to the writ petitioner. Inspite of repeated representations submitted by the writ petitioner, they are not made available to the writ petitioner and thus the writ petitioner is sought to be condemned without affording him a fair and reasonable opportunity of having first hand knowledge of the contents of those documents and then allow him to make his defence statement in respect thereof. Even before the defence statement is offered by the writ petitioner, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed and the Enquiry Officer, in great haste, started conducting the enquiry proceedings. Inspite of objecting to this unsustainable procedure adopted by the enquiring authority, he would not realize the fault and did not stop the enquiry proceedings. On the contrary, the enquiry proceedings have been abruptly concluded and purposefully an adverse report was drawn against the writ petitioner, holding all the charges as if proved. About the open hospitality and bias exhibited by the Enquiring Authority, the writ petitioner has raised a plea before the Competent Authority to change the enquiry authority. He urged before the Competent Authority demonstrating the bias of the Enquiring Authority. Inspite of bringing it to the notice of the enquiring authority, that a Petition to charge him is pending, the enquiry proceedings have not been withheld. Subsequently, his bias petition has been rejected without proper application of mind and also in a mechanical manner. Thus, the entire disciplinary proceedings are hopelessly vitiated.

5. It is also specifically urged by Mr.Paul Ravikumar, learned Counsel that the Director of CVRDE has no competence to issue a charge memo and thus initiate major disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner. In the instant case the Director has drawn the charge memorandum dated 10.11.2010 and signed it for the Director General, Defence Research Development Organization. Therefore, the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings is bad in law.

6. The Director is not competent at the first instance and he has not been specifically authorized by anyone who is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner to subject him to major penalty disciplinary proceedings. When he has taken up the matter with the Director General, DRDO, another individual kept on answering the representations of the writ petitioner, instead of Director General, DRDO dealing with such representations. Thus, the plea of the writ petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings have not been validly initiated against the petitioner, went unexamined and unredressed.

7. Per contra, Sri.Sengottuvel, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1-3, who seeks to nutralise those contentions by pointing out that the complaint allegedly made by the writ petitioner against the Director, CVRDE, has nothing to do with lack of devotion, discipline and control of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner being an employee of CVRDE, is bound to maintain at all times, the discipline and exhibit proper conduct. He is also required to render satisfactory services as assigned to him by his superiors. He cannot avoid rendering services by trying to intimidate or harass those who have assigned to him such works by challenging their competence or even correctness of assigning such duties to the writ petitioner.

8. In this context, Mr.Sengottuvel, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has drawn our attention to the five charges which have been listed out in Annexure I of the charge memo dated 10.11.2010. The five Articles of charges framed against the writ petitioner read as under:

STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI.M.CHELLADURAI, SENIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT'C' ARTICLE-1 Shri.M.Chelladurai, while functioning as Senior Technical Assistant 'C', in CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai, has been in the habit of reaching the office late and leaving the office earlier than the stipulated hours without any permission, thus exhibited misconduct which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-II Shri.M.Chelladurai, while functioning as Senior Technical Assistant 'C', in CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai, has disrupted the proceedings of Assessment Board, thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant thereby violated Rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-III Shri.M.Chelladurai, while functioning as Senior Technical Assistant 'C', in CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai, has refused to receive and acknowledge official communication addressed to him by Director, CVRDE and thus behaved in a manner unbecoming of Government Servant thereby contravening Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-IV Shri.M.Chelladurai, while functioning as Senior Technical Assistant 'C', in CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai, disobeyed security instructions and thus behaved in a manner unbecoming of Government Servant thereby contravening Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-V Shri.M.Chelladurai, while functioning as Senior Technical Assistant 'C', in CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai, has made some irrelevant and unwanted remarks in his service book and thus behaved in a manner unbecoming of Government Servant thereby contravening Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

STATEMENT OF IMPUTATIONS OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI.M.CHELLADURAI, SENIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT 'C' ARTICLE-I Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C' is in the habit of reaching the office late (from 2006 to till date) in the morning hours and leaving the office earlier than the stipulated closing hours without any permission from his Division Head and also not producing any permission or Gate Pass to leave the office prior to the closing hours. The individual swipes his ID card/affixing Thumb impression frequently as if he was let out in ON DUTY without permission / Gate Pass from his Division Head. He was also in the habit of not writing his name in the late register kept in the Security Office for that purpose on the dates when he comes late to the office in the opening hours. Several complaints have been received from Security Office refers.

Thus Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and has thereby violated provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-II The DRTC Central Assessment Board for the year 2007 was held in CVRDE during June/July 2007. As per the instructions issued in this regard, the individual employees who have to appear before the Assessment Board are required to submit their bio-date/synopsis to the concerned Divisional Heads for their further action in the matter. This, in turn, along with the comments of the respective superior officers is submitted for the consideration of the Board.

Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', has refused to submit any such synopsis and insisted that the assessment Board being an independent body, should interview him. When the Chairman of the Assessment Board insisted that the synopsis should come through proper channel, Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C',tried to stall the proceedings without allowing the other employees from attending the Assessment Board. Thus Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C' has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and has thereby violated provisions of Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules.

During the Central Assessment Board for DRTC for the year 2010 conducted at CVRDE, Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', submitted a representation to the Assessment Board when he was requested submit his synopsis related to technical activities. The individual insisted the Board to receive the letter and acknowledge him. Further, when he was asked to discuss the technical activities, he refused. About half-an-hour was wasted for which the Chairman requested the individual to leave the room. But, the individual refused to leave the room. Finally, the Chairman and the Committee members had to stop the proceedings of the meeting and left the room.

Thus Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C' has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and has thereby violated provisions of 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules.

ARTICLE-III Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C' refuses to receive and acknowledge any communication (ION/Memo/Charge sheet. Etc.) addressed to him by Director, CVRDE. On one occasion, a Memo was prepared for various charges and the same was sent to the individual by Director, CVRDE for acceptance with an acknowledgment. However, the individual refused to receive the same. Then, the said Charge sheet was sent by Post. The individual has refused to receive the same even by post.

On another occasion, Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C' was issued a Memo vide letter No. CVRDE/PC/MS/STAC dated 07.07.2010 through his Division Head (MSL Division). However Head (MSL) has informed in writing that the individual refused to accept this Memorandum. He returned the Memorandum without issuing the same to the individual. Director, CVRDE verbally instructed a Group of Officers (3 Members) and directed them to hand over the Memorandum to the individual. The Group of Officers have submitted a report the Director, intimating that the above Memorandum was not accepted by the individual on 13.07.2010.

Thus Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and has thereby violated provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-IV The Hon'ble RRM has visited CVRDE on 9th Jun 2007 and the main gate was earmarked as a Special Security Zone for the VVIP visit. The Centre Gate was open for all other ranks. A about 1400 hrs, Thus Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', went to the gate office and tried to muster of through the Main Gage which was exclusively meant for the use of VVIP visitor. The Security Assistants on duty informed him about the special security arrangements and requested him to use the Centre Gate. The individual refused to comply with the request of the Security Assistant stating that he is also a VVIP and that he will use only the Main Gate. He has forcefully opened the Main Gate and went out. To avoid complications, the DSC personnel did not confront him further.

On another occasion, on 19.08.2010 at 1600hrs, Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C' came to gate office to go out. When asked to produce personal gate pass, without saying anything, he has gone out through biometric system. Then the Security Officer told the Senior Security Assistant on duty to instruct DSC personnel on duty to close the gates and not to allow him out. Both gate were closed immediately. The Security Officer telephoned Head (Admin) and informed him. In the meanwhile a number of Visitors and Contractors assembled at the Gate to go out. One of the senior Scientists of CVRDE came at 1615 hrs to the Gate Office and requested the Security Officer to open the Gate since he has brought with him a Professor and wanted to go out urgently. After waiting for some more time CSO asked the DSC personnel on duty to open the Gate and allow the Car of the Professor to go out. The time was 1620 hrs. Inspite of asking Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', that he should not go out without giving gate pass, he went out quickly behind the Car.

Thus Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and has thereby violated provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE-V Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', came to E-II section of Admin and requested that his Service Book may be shown to him for verification. The Service Book was handed over to him for verification and instead of affixing his signature for the entries made based on relevant Daily Orders Part II, he has made some irrelevant and unwanted remarks at Page No.24 of Vol.No.V of the Service Book. Government Servant are not authorized or allowed to enter any remarks in their service book, but only to verify and sign for the authenticity of the casualties published through Daily Orders Part-II.

Thus Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C', has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and has thereby violated provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

9. The learned Senior Panel Counsel while drawing our attention specifically to charges 2 and 3 has contended that the writ petitioner has no business to disrupt the proceedings of the Assessment Board, and thus exhibited conduct which is unbecoming of a Civil Servant. The learned counsel would also point out that Defence Research Development Organization not only being an Establishment of Ministry of Defence, but is a very sensitive institution. It requires all concerned to maintain, highest standards of discipline, good conduct and behaviour at work place and more than anything one is required to exhibit decency and decorum and proper bearing. If an official communication is addressed to an employee by its Director, the learned counsel for the respondents would urge, that the employee concerned has to receive it and acknowledge it's receipt. He cannot in turn pose a challenge to the administrative authority of the Director to send any such official Communications.

10. Further, the learned counsel would also urge that when certain Security procedures have been deployed, everyone is required to faithfully and truthfully follow the same for gaining ingress and egress. It is highly essential to do so because of the very sensitive nature of work undertaken in the Establishment. More importantly the integrity and secrecy of all such activities undertaken therein is required to be maintained. Only on certain occasions, perhaps, a convenient route can be created, specially for receiving or sending off certain VIPs, who visit the Establishment as part of the official duties. Therefore, the special security arrangements made to meet such contingencies on those few rare occasions cannot be tampered with by an employee like the writ petitioner. When he has disobeyed the security instructions, and insisted that he use that very special corridor as he is also a VIP, he conducted himself in a most indisciplined manner by violating the security instructions, and hence the conduct of the writ petitioner is bound to be viewed seriously and hence Article IV of the charge memorandum has been framed. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondents would urge that when the writ petitioner has tampered his service record, he has been subjected to the disciplinary proceedings by framing the fifth article of charges. Thus, the charges that have been framed against the writ petitioner for his misconduct and they have nothing to do with the alleged representations said to have been submitted by the writ petitioner to the Central Vigilance Commissioner bringing out the alleged irregularities said to have been indulged in by the Director at all. The misbehaviour amounting to misconduct and the unbecoming conduct exhibited by the petitioner was responsible for subjecting the writ petitioner to disciplinary action by framing appropriate charges and hence such exercise cannot be termed as an extraneous exercise.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents would further urge that as per the approved procedure, a draft charge memo has been prepared bringing out the seriousness of the conduct exhibited by the writ petitioner and the draft charge memo has been forwarded to the Head Quarters of Defence Research Development Organization, New Delhi. The proposal has been approved by the Competent Authority, after carefully perusing the same. The approval accorded by the competent authority can be communicated by any other administrative officer available at the Head Quarters and any such communication does not amount to either non approval of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner by the Competent Authority or approval being accorded by some other agency other than the Competent Authority.

12. The learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn our attention to the communication dated 27.10.2010, which is placed at page 12 of the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the respondents. That communication has been sent by the Joint Director (Personnel), working at the Head Quarters of DRDO. That communication has clearly conveyed the approved/amended draft charge sheet for issuance to the writ petitioner. It is therefore improper for anyone to assume that the competent authority has not approved the disciplinary action to be initiated against the writ petitioner.

13. Similarly the learned counsel for the respondents would also draw our attention to the fact that the Bias Petition against the Enquiry Officer submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected by the competent authority. However, the communication in that regard dated 8th June 2012, was once again signed by the Joint Director (Personnel), working at the Headquarters of the DRDO. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents would urge that it is the competent authority who has examined the Bias Petition submitted by the petitioner, applied his mind and then found no merit therein and hence rejected it. The mere communication of the decision taken by the competent authority, by the Joint Director who is looking after all personnel matters at the Headquarters of DRDO, is not an illegal or improper exercise. Nor does it mean that it is the Joint Director who took the decision on the 'Bias Petition'.

14. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel would also point out that the procedure prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules has been very faithfully followed by the respondents. Every possible opportunity has been accorded to the petitioner to participate effectively in the enquiry proceedings. It is the writ petitioner who has not preferred to avail the same and for one reason or the other attributable exclusively to himself, he has avoided attending the disciplinary enquiry. It is after examining the witnesses, the enquiry authority has submitted his report holding the charges as held established. If the petitioner has not brought any material, which is in his favour and has not been anxious to defend the charges laid against him, he alone has to be blamed. The respondents are not responsible in any manner for the failure of the writ petitioner to lead the material which can lend support to his claim that he is not guilty of the charges. When serious misconduct is held established, the learned counsel for the respondents would urge, that there is nothing improper in imposing the major punishment of reduction to the lower grade and hence no exception need to be drawn there against.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents would elaborately submit that all the documents which have been cited in Annexure III to the charge memo have been supplied to the writ petitioner. In fact he has filed O.A.No.260 of 2011, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, for supply of copies of all those documents. On 09.12.2011, Tribunal decided the said Original Application, and in the course of the order passed therein, it is specifically recorded that the applicant in that case (the present petitioner) is satisfied as all the documents which were mentioned in Annexure III of the charge sheet dated 10.11.2010, have been received by him. Inspite of the same, the writ petitioner has not participated in the disciplinary enquiry even after 09.12.2011, but kept on repeating the same allegation that he has not been made available the copies of the documents listed out in Annexure III to the charge memo. He therefore urges that the present Writ Petition has to be dismissed, as it is misuse of the process.

16. We first deal with the contention of the writ petitioner as to whether the charge sheet dated 10.11.2010, has been approved by the competent authority or not, as that issue goes to the very root of the matter. There is no dispute with regard to the status of the petitioner. He is a Group B non-gazetted employee, as per the Classification set out in Rule 6 of the Classification of Posts. Rule 9 of the Rules spells out that all appointments to Central Services other than General Central Services Group-B, Group-C, and Group-D shall be made by the authorities specified in that behalf in the schedule to the said Rules. Rule 11 of these Rules lists out the minor penalties and major penalties which may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on a Government servant and reduction to a lower stage in the time scale or grade or post or service is recognized in Rule 11(vi) of the Rules and is also recognized as a major penalty. Rule 12 sets out the disciplinary authorities. Therefore, it becomes imperative for us to give a closer scrutiny to the schedule appended to the Rules.

17. Part I of the Schedule of the Rules deals with Central Civil Services, Group A, while Part II sets out Central Civil Services, Group B other than Civilians in Defence Services. While Part III deals with Central Civil Services Group C other than Civilians Defence Services. Part IV deals with Central Civil Services Group-D other than those Civilians in Defence Services. Part V deals with Civil posts in Defence Services and Entry 1 thereof deals with Group B posts, both gazetted and non gazetted. Dealing with Group B non-gazetted posts in lower formulations, Entry xiv deal with DRDO. In column 3 of the Table annexed there, the Director General of DRDO is notified as the Appointing Authority and he is the competent authority to impose all the punishments, while the Chief Controller, Research and Development (Administration) is the competent authority to impose minor punishments listed at clause (i) to clause (iv) of the Rules. Thus Part V, Entry xiv of Schedule to CCS (CCA) Rules makes it very clear that the Director General of DRDO is the Appointing authority for the Group-B non gazette personnel and he is also the competent authority to impose all punishments.

18. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed the copies of the internal correspondence exchanged in between CVRDE and the Head Quarters of DRDO, in the typed set of paper book. from that it is clear that on 22nd September 2010, the Headquarters of DRDO has responded to the two communications sent up earlier by the Director CVRDE on 03.08.2010 and on 09.09.2010. In this communication dated 22nd September 2010, the following decisions have been arrived at and hence, we consider it appropriate to quote the same:

2. The case has been examined by the Disciplinary Authority at this HQ. There is sufficient ground to proceed against Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C'. You are requested to take necessary action to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules.

3. A draft charge sheet with Annexure I to IV as per CCS (CCA) Rules may be prepared and forwarded to this HQ for perusal and approval.

19.From the above, it is imminently clear that the case of the writ petitioner has been examined by the Disciplinary Authority at the Headquarters of DRDO and the disciplinary authority had found that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the writ petitioner. Hence, the Director CVRDE was directed to prepare a draft charge sheet with Annexures I to IV as per CCS (CCA) Rules, and forward the same for perusal and approval of the Headquarters. In view of this authorization from the Headquarters, DRDO, the Director CVRDE, has merely prepared a draft charge sheet with Annexures I to IV and forwarded the same for perusal and for taking further appropriate action by the Head Quarters, DRDO, by its communication dated 13.10.2010. It is in response thereto that the Head Quarters, DRDO, by its decision on 27th October 2010 approved/amended the draft charge sheet. We consider it appropriate to extract the decision conveyed by the Headquarters, DRDO on 27th October herein below:

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS SHRI.M.CHELLADURAI, STA 'C' Refer your letter No.CVRDE/PC/MS/STA C dated 13 October, 2010.

2. The draft charge sheet against Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C' received vide your ibid letter has been perused at this HQ. Approved/amended draft Charge Sheet is enclosed for issuance to Shri.M.Chelladurai. You are requested to take further action under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, in the matter. Before issuing the Charge Sheet, facts/figures/dates mentioned therein may be re-checked. All documents received along with the draft charge sheet are returned herewith for your further action.

(BB Sharma) Jt. Director/Pers-TC For DGR&D (Emphasis is brought out now)

20. Thus, it is beyond any pale of doubt in our minds that it is the competent disciplinary authority, namely the Director General of DRDO who has approved the charges and directed the Director CVRDE to proceed further. The charge sheet that was issued to the writ petitioner on 10th February 2010, is hence, the one which is approved by the competent disciplinary authority.

21.There are various ways by which the competent authorities would be taking decisions. Sometimes they will be recording their approval in a Note File prepared and submitted before them. Whereas, a current file/running file may not necessarily contain the signature of the competent authorities. Similarly, when once the competent authority takes a decision and signs the Note File, the persons who have been assigned the work and task of assisting him on the Administrative side can communicate the decision so taken by the competent authority. Therefore, it is not uncommon in public administration that the communications are signed by someone other than the decision maker himself and sent up accordingly. In that process, what is being done is a mere transmission of the decision taken by the Competent Authority.

22. In the instant case the communication dated 27th October 2010, has been signed by one B.B.Sharma, who is working as Joint Director (Personnel) at the Headquarters DRDO. While signing it, he has clearly indicated that he is acting on behalf of the Director General by noting the following remarks at the end viz.

" (BB Sharma), Jt. Director/Pers-TC For DGR&D"

23. Thus the Joint Director in charge of personnel matters at the Headquarters of DRDO is not acting independently in the matter, but he is only communicating the decision of approval accorded by the competent disciplinary authority at the Headquarters of DRDO.

24.We have therefore no hesitation whatsoever to reject the aforementioned contentions raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the memorandum of charge sheet dated 10.11.2010, did not have the approval of the competent disciplinary authority.

25.Now, we take the principal submission that copies of documents relied upon, has not been furnished. In fact the writ petitioner in his representation dated 27.12.2010, addressed to the Director CVRDE (Placed at page 61 of the Paper Book filed along with the writ petition) has admitted that he has received copies of the documents listed from Sl.Nos. 3 to 9 and that he was specifically seeking to make available copies of the document mentioned - Item No.1 (89 Nos.) and Item No.2 (54 Nos.) only. A perusal of Annexure III of the charge memo dated 10.11.2010, clearly brings out that at Item No.1, the timings of his reporting and departure recorded at the Security Office of the Establishment are sought to be relied upon at Item No.2, the Attendance Report from January 2006 to October 2010, was relied in support of the relevant charge.

26.Any person who is seriously interested in disputing or denying charges 1 & 2 could have as well perused the information furnished by the Security Officer concerned, which are in the nature of slips bringing out the time of his reporting to duty and departure and his Attendance Report at his Work Station. This apart, when the writ petitioner has already been made available the documents cited at Sl. Nos. 3 to 9, he could have offered his explanation with regard to the other three charges at least. Far from either denying or admitting those three charges, he was indulging in seemingly interminable correspondence for supply of copies of documents listed at Item Nos. 1 and 2 of Annexure III of the charge memo. The conduct exhibited by the writ petitioner does not commend for acceptance, as any sincere individual would have filed his explanation with regard to the three charges and would have also promised to offer his explanation to charges 1 & 2 s the relevant documents are received by him instead of dodging completely to putforth his defence.

27.While it could be true that for effectively denying one's own involvement behind any allegations, the benefit of perusing the documents sought to be relied upon by the other side will certainly hold relevance. If one is really keen to put in his defence, the documents could have been perused during any working hours before any of the responsible officers of the Establishments. At any rate if the writ petitioner has offered his explanation with regard to the remaining three charges in asmuch as copies of documents cited at Sl. Nos. 3 to 9 of Annexure III are made available to him, the bonafides behind in non-filing of the explanation to the charge memo could become understandable. This apart, in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 09.12.2011, in O.A.No.260 of 2011, the satisfaction of the writ petitioner is having received copies of all the cited documents is recorded. In the post 9th December, 2011 period, inspite of number of occasions on which the enquiry officer kept on requesting the writ petitioner to participate in the disciplinary enquiry, the writ petitioner would not budge and he would not participate. The reason being that the writ petitioner drew up a representation on 24th October, 2011 and submitted the same alleging bias and requesting for change of enquiry officer and that representation of the writ petitioner was forwarded to the Headquarters of DRDO, but, was yet to be disposed.

28. Dealing with the said representation dated 24th October 2011, the Headquarters of DRDO, through its communication dated 10th May 2012, has conveyed its rejection, as the said representation was found devoid of merit. It will be appropriate to extract the communication dated 10th May, 2012, herein below:

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Shri.M.Chelladurai, STA 'C' Reference your letter No.CV/IT & MEC/SM/GEN dated 26.04.2012.

2. It is intimated that Shri.M.Chelladurai (C.O.) had submitted a representation dated 24.10.2011 to Director, CVRDE (with copy to you and to SA to RM/DGR&D) alleging bias and requesting for change of I.O. The C.O. has not been attending / co-operating in the inquiry thereafter on the plea that his petition is pending with SA to RM.

3. The petition dated 24.10.2011 submitted by Shri.M.Chelladurai has been examined by DGR&D and the same has been rejected by DGR&D being devoid of merit.

4. In order to ensure natural justice to Shri.M.Chelladurai, the competent authority has directed that I.O. should re-conduct the inquiry from the stage at which the C.O. had submitted his petition alleging bias viz 24.10.2011. Accordingly you are requested to re-conduct the inquiry proceedings from that stage onwards. The C.O. should be given sufficient notice to attend the same. The proceedings, in duplicate, duly finalized with your findings/ conclusion thereon be re-submitted under a covering letter.

(BB Sharma) Jt. Director/Pers-TC For DGR&D

29. From a perusal of the above communication, it become eminently clear that the representation alleging bias against the enquiring officer by the writ petitioner has been examined by the Director General, DRDO, the competent disciplinary authority. It is that authority, which found the said representation as devoid of merits and rejected the same. However, the communication in respect thereof was signed by the Joint Director, in charge of Personnel matters at the Headquarters, DRDO, as is the normal practice and procedure of forwarding such communications. If the writ petitioner is expecting the Director General, DRDO, himself, to have corresponded with him directly, we can only sympathise with his disappointment.

30. The communication of the Headquarters, DRDO dated 10th May 2012 was delivered to the writ petitioner on 22nd May, 2012. When an acknowledgement was sought for, this is what the writ petitioner has endorsed thereon:

31. The Writ Petitioner was obviously under a mistaken impression that it is Shri.B.B.Sharma, Joint Director, Personnel, Headquarters DRDO, who has disposed of his 'Bias Petition' dated 24.10.2011, whereas paragraph No.3 of the communication dated 10th May 2012, makes it abundantly clear that it is the Director General, R&D, DRDO who has rejected the said representation, finding it devoid of merit. The writ petitioner seeks his representation to be looked into by the Scientific Advisor (SA) to the Defence Ministry (Rakshya Mandhri) (RM). More than anyone else, the writ petitioner should be aware that the Director General DRDO acts as the Scientific Advisor (SA) to the Defence Minister (RM) and when once the Director General rejects his representation dated 24th October 2011, the writ petitioner is required to participate in the disciplinary enquiry.

32. The endorsement made by the writ petitioner on 22nd May 2012 has been forwarded by the CVRDE to the Headquarters, DRDO, on 28th May 2012. Immediately on 8th June 2012, once again the Headquarters, DRDO, has intimated the writ petitioner that it is the competent authority namely Director General, R & D, who has considered and rejected the representation dated 24th October 2011 of the writ petitioner. The said communication dated 8th June 2012 together with the remarks made by the writ petitioner thereon reads as under:

33. It is thus clear that the writ petitioner is not at all interested in participating in the enquiry proceedings and on the other hand is only interested in indulging in unproductive and useless correspondence. In the meantime the enquiring authority completed the enquiry and drew up his report, a copy of which was forwarded to the writ petitioner requiring him to submit his objections with regard to the findings of the enquiring officer.

34.While drawing his report, the enquiring officer in paragraph 4F has lamented that the charged officer (the writ petitioner) was not at all co-operative during the conduct of the enquiry, inspite of the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, in O.A.No.260 of 2011, dated 9th December, 2011. It was also lamented that on many occasions, the charged officer has misbehaved with the enquiring officer.

35.In response to the communications dated 24th July, 2012, the writ petitioner addressed a communication dated 6th August, 2012 to the Joint Director on DRDO, Headquarters, (copy of which is placed at page 118 of the paper book filed in the writ petition), which is reproduced herein below:

36. From the above communication, it is very clear that the writ petitioner has now changed his tune. Earlier he was challenging the authority of the Director, CVRDE and he is asserting that the disciplinary authority in his case is Scientific Advisor (SA) to Rekshya Mandhri (RM), who is none other than The Director General of Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO). Now in this communication dated 6th August, 2012, he takes a complete U turn and asserts that it is the Director, CVRDE, who is his Appointing Authority and consequently the Competent Disciplinary Authority. The intemperate language which the writ petitioner is using all through is also visible from the above communication.

37.It appears, this time the Assistant Director, other than Shri.B.B.Sharma, Joint Director(Pers-TC), DRDO, appears to have sent up the communication dated 23rd August, 2012. In response thereto the writ petitioner has addressed Shri.A.K.Agarwal, Director of Personnel/PersTC, DRDO, on 12th September, 2012. The writ petitioner has taken a great defence of not providing him with any file noting/authority letter from the disciplinary authority. He has also proceeded to challenge the advise of Shri.A.K.Agarwal, Director of Personnel/PersTC, DRDO in the following words:

Please use your brain and read carefully before signing any letter to send any body. You dance your own tune not for Shri.P.Sivakumar, Director,.... .

38. The writ petitioner has also sent another communication using equally intemperate language on 23rd January, 2013. Vexed with the non co-operative attitude exhibited by the writ petitioner in not making available his comments, objections and/or submissions on the enquiring officer's report, the Head Quarters, DRDO, has concluded that the writ petitioner has nothing more to offer on the findings submitted by the enquiry officer holding him guilty of all the five charges. In those given circumstances an order imposing punishment came to be passed on 29th January 2013, imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower grade of Senior Technical Assistant-B upon the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 11 (vi) of the CSS (CCA) Rules 1965. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, by instituting O.A.No.257 of 2013 there against and that O.A. was dismissed on 26th April 2013, setting out that it cannot interfere with the impugned order. Against the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rendered in O.A.No.257 of 2013, the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No.18712 of 2013 and that writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th September 2013, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment dated 29th January, 2013, before the Appellate Authority under Rule 24 of the Rules, within a period of four weeks and the Appellate Authority, if receives any such Appeal, was directed to consider the same on merits, without reference to the limitation provided. In response to this order of this Court dated 19th September 2013, the writ petitioner has preferred an Appeal on 24th October 2013, and that Appeal has been rejected by the order dated 30th April 2014. Once again for the third time, the writ petitioner instituted Original Application in O.A.No.837 of 2014. Since the said Original Application has been dismissed, the present writ petition was instituted, as already noticed by us supra.

39. From what has been brought out by us, it emerges very clearly that the writ petitioner has not extended any courtesy or co-operation for completing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. All through he was languishing under a mistaken impression that the charge sheet dated 10th November, 2010, has come about because he filed a complaint against the Director, CVRDE with the CVC. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, charges can be laid against the delinquent employee, if there was any misconduct attributable to him. Submission of representations by the writ petitioner to CVC against the Director, CVRDE, is altogether a different matter and that has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct required to be exhibited by the writ petitioner. When we have perused the charges, the first article of charge brings out his indisciplined conduct of reaching the office late and leaving the office earlier, than the stipulated hours of working without obtaining prior permission on several occasions. One can understand a defence on the part of employee that he is never guilty of reaching his office late or even leaving the office early. We can also understand any defence that by the very nature of duties and responsibilities entrusted to him, he had to go elsewhere first, like collecting data from the suppliers of material or procuring any samples from the market and then bring them for official use in the laboratory, as the reasons for his reporting to duty on few occasions behind the normal time for reporting. For similar reasons perhaps, one can understand leaving the office before the scheduled closing hours. That was not the case of the writ petitioner. He had not offered any reply or response. He protracted his response on the precious plea that the copies of 89 note slips furnished by the Security Officer have not been made available to him. Even when they were made available, the writ petitioner has not offered any explanation and maintained silence. In fact the writ petitioner has filed O.A.No.260 of 2011 and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, order dated 9th December 2011, has recorded as under:

During pendency of the OA, the applicant has received the copy of the documents of items 1 & 2 which are shown under Annexure III of the charge sheet dated 10.11.2010. Now the applicant is satisfied that all the documents which are mentioned in Annexure III of the charge sheet dated 10.11.2010 has been received. Since the relief in the OA has been granted, the OA has become infructuous. The applicant is directed to cooperated with the Inquiry Officer to conclude the inquiry proceedings, not later than six months.

(Emphasis is played now)

40. Therefore, by 9th December 2011, if not a little earlier thereto, the writ petitioner has secured all the copies of documents made a mention of in Annexure III of the charge sheet. He cannot make any issue in respect thereof thereafter.

41.As we have already pointed out the writ petitioner has admitted at the very begining the fact that he has received copies of the documents listed at on Sl. Nos. 3 to 9, but, surprisingly, in his representation dated 7th February 2012, addressed to the Director, CVRDE, Avadi, he stated as under:

Kindly refer the CAT order under reference-3, the Hon'ble CAT madras Bench had ordered to give me the documents which are mentioned in the representation dated 26.11.2010. I regret to intimate that as on today you have not obeyed the Court order and issued the relevant documents as requested by me.

42. We fail to understand as to how the writ petitioner can maintain such as stand. It is more than clear to us that the writ petitioner is actually not interested in participating in the disciplinary proceedings as he clearly lacks any defence worth validly offering to the charges framed against him. We have therefore, no hesitation to reject the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the punishment order is not sustainable, as the charges framed against the petitioner are held established.

43. However one other contention advanced by Shri.Paul, learned Senior Counsel deserves a serious consideration. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that Rule 11(vi) of the Rules has suffered an amendment by way of substitution through Notification dated 2nd February, 2010, which was published in Government of India GSR No.55(E) dated 2nd February, 2010. The relevant part of Amended Rule reads as follows:

11(vi) reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant during such specified period to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service from which he was reduced4

44. Based on this amended provision, Shri.Paul, learned counsel would contend that after 2nd February, 2010, the punishment period in case of reduction to a lower time-scale or grade or post or services has got to be specified and if no such period is specified, such a punishment order is liable to be treated as impermissible, unauthorized and illegal. Shri Paul, learned senior counsel would contend that prior to 2nd February, 2010, the said provision would read as under:

11.Penalties:

(vi) reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or services which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service.

45. Since the old provision did not require the Competent Authority, while imposing the punishment, to specify the currency of the period of punishment, Rule has been amended requiring the Competent Authority to apply his mind to the period for which the currency of the punishment period would last. In the instant case, it is urged that, while imposing the punishment the punishing authority has merely imposed penalty of reduction to the lower grade of STA B upon writ petitioner without specifying the period of its currency. Therefore Shri.Paul, learned counsel would contend that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel would also urge that, in fact the Division Bench of this Court, while granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an Appeal against the punishment order, has also left the said contention to be urged by the writ petitioner before the Appellate Authority and hence the appellate authority was also required to consider the same. Whereas the appellate authority has not even applied his mind to the said contention.

46. In reply, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has drawn our attention to the Government of Indias decision furnished under Rule 11 of the Rules. Instructions 9 thereunder as set out, that the reduction ordered may be for an unspecified period or an indefinite period and in cases where no period has been specified in the order of penalty, the conclusion is that the penalty is for an unspecified period. He would, therefore, based upon this Government of Indias decision, would urge that mere non specification of the currency of the punishment period does not vitiate the order of punishment dated 27th January 2010.

47.We have given our anxious consideration to this issue. It is no doubt true that the Government of Indias decisions which are, in fact published in the Muthuswamys Compilation of CCS (CCA) Rules in its latest Edition, did lend support to the above plea. But, we noticed that the Government of Indias decision referred to supra was communicated through OM. No.F-2 (18)-E. III/61 dated 7th May, 1961. Thus, it is reasonable for us to infer that the Government of Indias decision of 7th May 1961 came to be issued in the context of the unamended provision which never required the punishing authority should specify the period of currency of punishment. When once Rule 11(iv) of the Rules is amended and the amendment was also notified on 2nd February, 2010, we must assume that the Rule making authority now has particularly departed from the earlier decision of the Government of India, dated 7th May 1961, and required the punishing authorities to specify the period of currency of the punishment.

48. However, in our opinion it will not be the end of this case. The writ petitioner has been proceeded against as a measure of discipline. He has not co-operated in conducting the enquiry proceedings and or their completion. He tried all methods available with him to procrastinate the issue. In fact the enquiring authority has also lamented that the charged officer (writ petitioner) has misbehaved with him. The writ petitioner virtually frustrated everyone around. That could be the reason why, while drawing up his report, the enquiring officer has forgotten to assign reasons for his conclusions. While recording findings, he merely repeated all the five charges and then recorded his conclusion that they are proved. The reasons why those charges have been held proved are found missing. After all, the reasons are the live links which offer a clear picture as to the lines on which the decision making authority, Judicial or Quasi Judicial has arrived at his findings/ conclusions. Hence, if reasons are not assigned for the conclusions drawn, the conclusions do not offer a valid platform for the follow up action. This being too grave an infirmity, the disciplinary proceedings perhaps might have to be remitted back to be concluded properly.

49. However, we have already noticed that at least on three occasions, the writ petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, by instituting O.A.Nos. 260 of 2011, 257 of 2013 and 837 of 2014. He has also approached this Court once before in W.P.No.18712 of 2013. We are also informed that in the meantime, merely by attaining the age of superannuation he has retired from service on 31st July, 2014. Taking all these factors as exceptional circumstances, as set out as a principle by the Honble Supreme Court in B.C.CHATURVEDI v UNION OF INDIA & ORS [1995 (6) SCC 749], we preferred to shorten the entire proceedings by imposing a minor penalty against the petitioner. For the purpose of imposing a minor punishment, the procedure which is required to be followed for imposition of major punishment need not be followed. It is enough if a fair and reasonable opportunity is held out to the delinquent employee to offer his explanation and upon consideration of the explanation, if it does not contain any merit, the competent authority can straight away impose a minor punishment.

50. In the instant case, every possible reasonable opportunity has been accorded to the writ petitioner. It is he who has squandered every such opportunity. He procrastinated the proceedings beyond tolerable limit. Out of sheer frustration, the enquiring officer has drawn his report, drawing the curtains on the proceedings. Therefore, it will not be fair to allow the writ petitioner to take advantage of his own blameworthy conduct all through. There is no defence whatsoever he has offered to anyone of those charges. Each one of the charges framed against the writ petitioner has a serious element of misdemeanour attributed to him. However, instead of remitting back the matter for conducting the enquiry afresh, we consider that ends of justice would be served better, if we modify the impugned order of punishment by substituting the punishment of reduction of pay by five incremental stages for all the five series of charges laid against the petitioner.

51. Accordingly, the order of punishment dated 29th January, 2013, stands modified by substituting the punishment of reduction to the lower stage of STA B with that of reduction of pay by five stages in STA 'C' category. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to regulate the exercise. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

					                        (N.R.R.J.,)       (S.M.S.J.,)
					                                15.06.2017            

Index   : Yes
Internet: Yes
si/rpa 





To

1.Union of India,
Rep. by the Scientific Advisor to 
Rekshya Mandhri (RM),
Secretary, Defence Research and
Development (R & D) Organization and 
Director General Research and 
Development (DGR & D),
Ministry of Defence,Directorate of Personnel,
'A' Block, DRDO Bhavaan,
New Delhi  110 011.



2.The Director,
Defence Research Development
Organization (DRDO),Combat Vehicle Research and 
Development Establishment (CVRDE),
Avadi, Chennai  600 054.

3.Deputy Director (PERS),
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Defence Research & Dev. Organization,
Directorate of Personnel/Pers  TC,
'A' Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi  110 011.


4.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
High Court Campus,
Chennai  600 104. 













NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J., 
and                       
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,              


rpa

  















W.P.No.17670 OF 2015













15.06.2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court