Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The applicant submitted that the entire proceedings initiated against him in terms of Annexure A-10 charge memo are in complete violation of the statutory provisions contained in Article 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. There was no evidence at all laid on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and no documents were placed in the manner known to law. Annexure A-1 order is ab-initio void and without jurisdiction as the charge memo was issued by an authority in the Junior Administrative Grade and the penalty was imposed by an authority higher in rank. There is absolutely no misconduct on the part of the applicant. The charges said to have been proved by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority do not constitute a misconduct falling within the ambit of that term. There is no provision in the rules imposing a penalty of 'Dies-non' under the CCS (CCA) Rules. Annexure A-2 order is contrary to Rule 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The penalty of reduction by one stage in Annexure A-1 order is incapable of being operated after the implementation of the recommendations of VI Central Pay Commission. The penalty imposed is highly disproportionate shocking the conscience of any one of ordinary prudence. It is also discriminatory as those who were working under the Accountant General (A&E), who were also alleged to have committed similar offences on the same days were proceeded against under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and imposed with a minor penalty.

4. The respondents in their reply statement submitted that none of the grounds raised by the applicant is legally sustainable. The impugned orders were issued after following the procedures prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant had submitted an application for Earned Leave for the period 19.12.2006 to 21.12.2006 on urgent personal affairs. However, he came to the office and participated in the dharna/demonstration on these days. The participation of the applicant in the dharna/demonstration showed lack of devotion to duty violating the provision contained in clause (ii) of sub rule 1 of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Giving false reasons for applying for leave was unbecoming of a Government servant as per clause (iii) of sub Rule 1 of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. His participation was also violative of the provisions contained in clause (ii) of Rule 7 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration his contention that he remained in the Section upto 5.30 p.m on 12.01.2007, had dropped the charges contained in Article IV. However, his participation in the illegal activities after office hours was unbecoming of a Government servant violating the clause (iii) of sub rule 1 of Rule of CCS (Conduct) Rules. The competent authority had sanctioned him casual leave on the forenoon of 17.04.2007 on the ground of urgent private affairs. However, he came to the office and participated in the dharna/demonstration held on 17.04.2007. A warning was issued vide Annexure A-9 memo dated 12.07.2007 in connection with the demonstration held on 01.06.2007, not to indulge in such activities in future. Issue of warning is only an administrative action and it does not prevent the Disciplinary Authority from taking disciplinary action under the relevant provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The functions of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) and the Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) are the same. At the time of issue of charge memo, the Senior Deputy Accountant General was holding the charge of Administration. However, on his transfer, Deputy Accountant General was posted in his place. The orders Annexure A-1 and A-10 are issued by the competent authority in respect of the applicant. It was further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority is competent to impose 'Dies-non' under the provisions of the Fundamental Rule 17. The applicant has not brought any material evidence to disprove the charges framed against him. The appeal submitted by the applicant was considered by the Appellate Authority as per provisions of Rule 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As regards Annexure A-1 order, there is no need for revision and the applicant had not brought any complaint on this since the date of implementation of the pay revision orders according to the recommendations of the VI CPC. The reduction of increment in the scale of pay with cumulative effect is the lowest penalty included in the major penalties. Hence the contention of the applicant that the penalty imposed upon him is highly disproportionate, is not tenable. The enquiry conducted or not conducted in the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, cannot be equated with the case of the applicant. The applicant had participated in the dharna/demonstration from 19.12.2006 to 21.12.2006, 12.01.2007, 17.04.2007 and on 01.06.2007 for reasons which are not directly applicable to the office of the applicant. In the above circumstances, the O.A. should be dismissed.

Mere participation in a demonstration is not a misconduct which falls within the purview of clause (ii) of Rule 7 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, we hold that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority and confirmation of the Appellate Authority that the applicant had breached clause

(ii) of Rules 7 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in participating in a demonstration after office hours in the office premises, is not legally tenable. The removal of the applicant by the police from the office premises by itself does not constitute a misconduct under the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

(ii) of sub rule 1 of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which states that every Government servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. The Appellate Authority also has accepted the same. While participation in a demonstration may not attract provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules as already discussed, taking leave by giving false reason is certainly unbecoming of a Government servant.

11. Out of twelve charges, only one charge is proved against the applicant. For the above misconduct, imposition of major penalty even if it is in the lowest rung of major penalties enunciated under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, in our view, is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The Appellate Authority had dropped the charges X to XII, yet that did not lead to any reduction in the penalty imposed on the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority. Those who were working under the Accountant General (A&E) were punished for the same offences as charged against the applicant, with a minor penalty only. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed 'Dies-non' on the the applicant on the day he was on sanctioned leave also. 'Dies-non', not being a penalty listed in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, should not have found a place in the Annexure A-1 order.