Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sadasiba Gouda vs Military Engineer Services on 11 April, 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK Reserverd on: 29 G3.2023 Proncaiaiced cay $523 Sadasiba Gouda, aged about af y years, 5/o Late juria Gouda, at py ent i FOM ESR} under Garrison Engineer, MES Chi ka, At/P.OcSalugacn Dist: Khu raha Odisha permanent dent af vill Thandull, POLYPS. Hind, Dist: Ganiam, oon APMivant a For the Agplicant: Mr. BK Saboo, Course!
-Versus-
i. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry af Defense [Navy], Defense Head Quarters, New Delhi- ELQQL1, é. Engineer-in-Chief, Kashmir House, New Delhi-TT0011. 3S. Chi' Engineer, Eastern Conmnand, PIN-YOSS42, Cfo 98 APO, Port William, Kolkata - 700 021, < wee seein pre Facet 4 Chief Engineer, (Navy! Miltary Enemerring Service
- MOST FEE Works Engineer, Station Road, x & Sespandenes Por the Respondents: Mr. OR. ¥erma, Counsel URDER $j Swarup Kumar Mishra, Me mber {i}:
it revesis taet ap icant while worhing {SR} was Maced under suspension with lmmediate effect vide ordes HESOLo CAS ie) Ne preferred apmeal agalnst such order, swhich was rejected vide letter dated PSG22019 CA/16), The peril of SUSPENSION WES ON a further period of "() days woah NER PE SIE RS + de expe ge cee Peg hes ot Sys FB TEPER IS POA SF ca ehe fe' te Ay. OB.G.2020 vide order dated (44M. S020 GAYTY), which was subsequently extended vide order L1G 2020 (Af 19). According to the applicant, the order of suspension 3 3 and its further continuance for such a fone period is de hors the rules and is bad in law. Nenes, the appliount has filed this OA with the 2019 WILEY ANTONUTS and 8 uspension ate, 104 2020, IG.OF SOE QLITO20e0 under Annexures-A/t i7. Af fUi srl ALY re spe ax ctivel y declasing it te be mull and vald being vi jolati ve ol A} fn Steg iRANe. dS af See ari circulars issued with regard to mode oF suspension and further be pleased ty direct inummediate reinstatement of the applicant in his eligible post with all service benefits, my
i) td eas the erder f suspensian ded. (110.2019 at sf extension of suspension dtd.
040 4 2092 > rd dic. OF. 1a 2028 uader by the competent author yas being wiclative of the CS cae issued in this rea rd, iH)...to direct the respendents to release the differential subsistence allowance from the date the applicant is entitled to get enhanced subsistence allowance within the stipulated pericc, ivy And grant any other relleffs & Respondents Hed thelr counter inter alfa stating therein that on an allegation of secu ring joh on the streneth of fake SLC, charge sheet under Rule If of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to him yide memorandum dated 12.02. 2018 and Simultaneously FIR was lodged before the Salugson Police Station, which was registered as FIR Ne. Qls4 dated 30.11.2018, which was subsequently converted to GR Case applicant, on surrender, was released on hail As per the rules, the appainting authority or any other authority to which it is a subordinate AS NS a 8 eh 5 5 Py RALLY Pkt ok ¥. SEITE EME EEE ES PS XS, eye s ¥. ~ eke s, m TAY Pick? SB BOvVeYien? servant pnider aye SDSS OF » and, fherefore, in exercise of the power under Rede 10 of CCS (CCA) toe respondent No.6 placed the applicant unc er Suspension vide order dated PPdoa.:
ywimation ty Respondent Nes, 4 and 5. XN spe ES ey ey BO eeerry feces - Po $f ee gw 4 eee ohy toe er Apgicant preferred appeal far revecation of his suspension, which was GENER AMES EEE RE RRR LES considering whether to continue the applicant under suspension ar othemvise and oon the recommendation of the review board, the or suspension of the agplicant was extended from time to time. Meanwhile another charee sheet uader Rule | Teo5 was issued to the applicant vide momoarandum dated The [ise Broaceedines initiated agafnst the applicant has been Rd } eS ry Fripunal in separate OAs and challenged by the applicant befi CRLMC No, 2245 has been Aled by the annlicant in the criminal case instituted against hint According to the respondents, Sub rule 2C1) (5) of Rule LD afCcs (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that the sgpointing autharigy net PRaex PR ocean d ies kc 5 Xe yates eet wy ey A tees ees 4 ar ure Disciplinary Authonity ar any other authority empowered in that ya if g xe i tPSt behalf may place a govt. servant under suspension where 4 cas him in respect of any criminal af 2 ys under investivation, ingulry ar _ tat ThAaNea. F325 oF O28 trial, Henee, the alesatian agains! apnlicant of his Invalvement in criminal offence having been prima facie found in existence on the basis mE Fae Elev edivacy fxr fer ose ee pyet dary Sys rc tercor y ¢ af fact finding inquiry conducted by the department and institution of criminal case, the applicant was rightly placed under suspension, which requires ne judicial interference at this stage. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.
3. The applicant has Aled rejoinder In which it is stated that the + order of suspension and the initiation of the disciplmary proceedings are all vitiated being null and void in the eyes of law because of lack mf Vy if jurindiction on the authority whe had placed the applicant under suspensian and issued the charge sheet. He has also questioned the non-
revision of his subsistence allowance to 79%) from the existing rate of 504, lt has been submitted that issuance of second charge sheet dated S 15.42.2020 on the self same allegation during the existence of the first +} charge sheet is bad in law, [tis alleged) that notwithstanding the fact that the charge sheet and the order of suspension has not been issued by the authority competent to do sa, 10 and PQ were appointed and the iO conducted and concluded the fnquiry in violation of rules and submitted its report holding the applicant guilty on the charges. The aX ss we hos i said report was supplied to him. In other words, it is alleged that the y GANG ATs ahs s pepart of the 10 entire gamut starting f said to be bonafide exercise of power besides being nat ia violation of 3 rules and principles of natural fustice.
4. In course of Hearing, in support of his stand taken in the pleadings Ld. Counsel for the spwicant has placed BaP&T OMs in support of the relief claimed fn the GA as unsher:
fy DoPST OM FNo. T1OT2/O4 201 6-Estt{ A} dated 23.08.2016 (Subs Central eivbu Serv ces {Chassification, Centra! and Appeal} Rules. wstructions regarding timely issue of charge sheet} a} PoPST OM B.No. TA 2 6/2007-Esth{Adi dated 22a. 2018 [Sub Simultancous 2 Scten | of prosecution and iniiation of depa rtme nial prac ay (a QA SUS /20 "i dispose ofiare He Ya. UN & Ors .)-CAT, Abmedahad Bench; y Gv} Decisi on af the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Na. 1942 P2015 dated 16.02.2015 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. U0} & OFS, ea High Court in WLP Na.
Anna paren V5, District ma Collect for, Qharmapuri & Ors}; (vh Precision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court In WiPNo. SOFE/20 OL? dated I412019 (O.Raskaran Vs. Addl DG of Police (LAG), Salal, Mylopore & Anr.); (vi Decisio a af the Hon'h! HE Ap ER Court in Civil Appeal Nos. P2078 (State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. Pramod s Ann} disposed ofon LUG 2018;
' Guttack Sere hh in OA O17 and 69S of 2019 he ne P-Bae sh s 1s my Sandeep Yadav @ Yadav Sandesp Vs. UOl fix} Deck sian of the Han'ble High Court of Orissa in WEE? No. t2 3/2020 (UOE & Ors, Va As higuezaman! dated St OF. 202¢ : _ ix} Bedsion af the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition OD Na, 664 Loa 2006 fOO) & Ors Vs. Dipak Mall} « fy.4
ion af che Han' ble Manipur Sorenshangbam ITs ad 27.09. re0ee ae af za2i gs sinod K " mar V5.
& Ary} ¢ fal Psi} Order of 28/2020 and 270/202 4 dated 34 3 > 4 ide Vs UOL& Ors:
ian, oo Eo Be Bs, Gn the other hand, Ld Counsel for the respondents has submitted tnat the allegation of securing job by producing fake SLC was found to be correct in course of fact finding inquiry before Issuing the charge sheet and registration of the criminal case against the applicant. The crimunal case is sul under adjudication before the competent court of law and insalar as disciplinary proceedings is concerned, the report Submitted by the 1G has already been supplied to the applicant and the further course ofaction will be taken upon consideration of the reply of the applicant vis a vis the records. [t Is alec submitted that it is a settled x law that each case is decided based on the facts and issues involved therein. The decisions relied on by the applicant has no application te the present case as in none of the cases the factual matrix and } iSSuEes invalved In the present were the issues therein and therefore those cases have no applicatian in the case in band. By placing reliance on the ye order of this Tribunal dated SLQL2023 passed in OA 2268/2020 and es edveddded ¥ FS = MOLLOLELEPOEPLILOEME DS ¢ the charges sheet dated TS.12 2020 Umpugned in OA 2POs202 1} on the ground that the alk ation against the applicant is serious and the authority concerned wy ti initiate the forte ot or et fa oft oe, jewite rane not pon eat, net ve yrs i L a eA ere, eased a Ch wer xe, wey.
on eo we proceedings and the ¢ stand on the y. Purther, the stars! the applicant wilh regs factual aspect of the Issue the same was to be los iked into by the authority concerned, Purther it has heen contended that the applicant as placed under suspension due to cr iminal ease and the criminal case is sl under adjudicate eCS (CCA) Rules. The suspension of the apy olicant was extended an the masis of the recommendation of the review board. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of this OA.
& We have considered the rival submission of the partes anal spelied on by the applic that the applicant challenged the charge sneet Satan dated 12.02.2018 in OA No. which was disposed of in cere
7. Ymsofar as the mrarporandum ee 15.12.2020, whic pres x challenged in OA ing te Ld Counsel for the applicant, the g existence of frst) wey Stee Pray * MAS TOR, Ee OF z 3 ¢ £ x ation leveled if ge sheet is nat correct re harass the applicant and without Jering the facts of che matter in fts true spirit has brought hame the ales at the fag end of his ser eareer. The respondents cause i inquiry ina slipshod manner without adhering to the rales and principles of matural justice. Therefore. eis is a fit case where this Tribunal may interfere i the matter. On the other hand, the La. Counsel appesring for the respanderts has submitted chat the allegation against the applicant is serious in nature ari if the allegation is uitimately established ts be neat.
correct, the applicant wil ga scot-lree, 2 has been submitted that if the inquiry was set conducted in accordance with rules on principles of natural justice, H is within the domain of the applicant fo af itafe the same wefore the authority concerned as per the rules. Therefore, ey se this Tribunal may not Interfere tn the matter at this stage. $> "
G we have considered the rival submission of the respective parties. We Snd that the allegation against the applicant is serious in nature and the authority concerned is within its competency to initiate the proceedings when it came to their knowledge that one has entered into the service by producing fake certificate and, in such an event, the delay and laches' for initiating proceedings cannot stand on the way is a settied position of law. The stand taken by the applicant relating to the factual aspects of the issue is a matter for the authority concerned to look into while delving inte 10 CEA Sabb of MISO the allegation made in the charge sheet in accordance with rales and law. ins view of the above, we do not see any Mable reascu: Us the charge sheet dated 2.2020 Inypugned in OA is Bat x3 cen * in eiew of fhe earlier order af this Tribuna stand taken by the applicant that the Inquiry was Hot conducted: in anot be considered in this OA when this Os fees meee:
pox i on a Paes ed es cath wh, ome, a! accordance with raul been fled by the applicant challenging his arder of suspension and its further continuance Rule 1G of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1° 55 provides that the appointing murhority or any authority to which ic is subordinate or the disciplinary authority ar anys other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by ge eperal or special order, may place a Government servant under SHS DETISON, in the Pistant case, apaiial the arder of suspension, the applicant submitted its appeal /revision, which was rejected justifying the order of ignediate suspension taking Inte consideration the gravity of allegation made against the applicant PERS me got - bs gS sty gt we why iy time fo Gime oF ene Heh:
Thereafter, suspension was extended from recommendation af the review ba ard, Hence, the stand of the applicant as the initial order of suspension was WOU Passe «d by the proper uthority, the same is Hable to be quashed does mot sound. to fudicial conscience especially when the criminal case Is stil under adjudication hide es DANG. 4 af 2029 and that disciplinary praceedings are yet to be conchaled and hence the prayer for quashing the order of suspension is declined, However, in mind the rule and law, the respondents are directed to gs inffigted against the apmicant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this 8, gsed afleaving the parties ty bear their (PRAMOD KUMAR RDA AS (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA} MEMBER(A MEMBER ())