A disciplinary authority cannot be held entitled to impose

A disciplinary authority cannot be held entitled to impose
economically onerous liability upon an employee

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH

OA No.841/2010

New Delhi, this the 30th day of September, 2010

HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J)
HON BLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A)


Sh. Charan Singh,
S/o Late Shri Tej Ram,
R/o B-154, Gali No. 1,
Rajbir Colony, Gharoli Extension,
Delhi-110096. Applicant.

(By Advocate Shri Sant Lal)

Versus

1. The Union of India, through the
Secretary, M.O. Communications
& I.T. Dept. of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.

3. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Delhi East Division, Delhi-110051. Respondents.

(By Advocate Shri Ashish Nischal for Shri Rajinder Nischal)

ORDER (ORAL)

Justice S.D. Anand:

The applicant herein was in employment of the respondents as a Postal Assistant at the relevant point of time. He initially joined employment as a Packer, in the Group `D cadre w.e.f. 02.02.1987. He became a Postman, on promotion, in the year 1990. He earned further promotion in the cadre of Postal Assistant w.e.f. 20.04.1992.

2. On account of dereliction, the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1965 Rules ) came to be initiated against him vide Memo dated 22.09.2005. The impugned dereliction on the part of the applicant herein constituted violation of Rule 3 (I) (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1964 Rules ). While declining the plea made by the applicant for the certified copies of eight relevant documents (vide application dated 07.10.2005), the disciplinary authority granted permission to him to inspect the records. Ultimately, a penalty of recovery of Rs.31,500/- was imposed upon the applicant, vide order dated 31.01.2006. The amount was recoverable from out of the salary of the applicant in 15 monthly installments. Further, the revisional authority enhanced the penalty to Rs.1,23,860/-.

3. The applicant did not file an appeal against the initial order of penalty. We need not go into the aspect of validity or otherwise of the verbal presentation presently made that it was only on account of inadvertence that the appeal could not be filed. It is, however, apparent that the applicant filed a revision petition and requested the revisional authority to treat it as an appeal. While rejecting that appeal, the revisional authority enhanced the amount of penalty recoverable to Rs.1,23,860/-. The amount already recovered was ordered to be adjusted against the enhanced penalty aforementioned.

4. The applicant herein has challenged the initial imposition of penalty and also the enhancement of penalty.

5. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, vehemently canvasses that the impugned enhancement which came about after duration of little more than three years, could not be held to be a valid exercise of power in terms of Rule 29 of the relevant Rules.

6. It is common ground that all that the rules provide is that the exercise has to be initiated and concluded within a reasonable period. The rules do not indicate the exact time frame within which such an exercise is to be concluded.

7. The validity of such a Rule came for consideration before a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari (Civil Application No.16575 of 2005). The relevant notification was invalidated with the observations which are extracted hereunder:

3. Perusal of sub rule (vi) demonstrates that authority can exercise the power within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order at any time either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the record of any inquiry and revise any order made under these Rules. The general or specified order should specify the time within which the power can be exercised at any time. Notification issued under this Rule is as follows:-

No.50In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (vi) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 29 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President, hereby specifies that in a case of Government servant serving in the Department of Posts for whom the appellate authority is subordinate to the authority designated as the Principal Chief Postmaster General or the Chief Postmaster General (other than the Chief Postmaster General of Senior Administrative Grade) of a Circle, the said Principal Chief Postmaster or the said Chief Postmaster General, as the case may be, shall be the revising authority for the purpose of exercising the powers under the said Rule 29.

4. From the above quoted Notification, it is crystal clear that it has not specified any time limit within which power under Rule 29 (1) (vi) is exercisable. Accordingly, Notification is not in accordance with Rule 29, therefore, it has rightly been quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. We find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.

8. There can, thus, be no escape from the conclusion that the impugned enhancement was not valid.

9. In so far as the initial imposition of penalty is concerned, there also the respondents are not on a firmer ground. The pleadings raised by the respondents do not, at all, indicate that any inquiry into the alleged dereliction on the part of the applicant had been held. This fact was very fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents before us when we called upon him to invite our attention to any documentation which could prove that any inquiry in the matter had been held. His plea, in the face of that predicament, that the penalty imposed amounted to a minor punishment and that it was not incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority to get an inquiry held, is neither hear nor there. Hear, thus, was a case, in which there was a precise allegation against the applicant to the effect that he refrained from performing the duty which led to pecuniary loss to the Government. It was incumbent upon the department to prove that the applicant herein indeed was charged with the responsibility of performing an act which he did not and which (refrain from performance) led to the loss to the State exchequer. A disciplinary authority cannot be held entitled to impose economically onerous liability upon an employee just like that. The proceedings in the context must have, to say the least, semblance of what goes in the name of an inquiry. By the very nature of things, the imposition of penalty of this type must be preceded by the adjudication of accountability at the hands of the inquiring authority.

10. In the light thereof, even the initial imposition of penalty cannot be upheld.

11. We would, accordingly, allow this O.A. The impugned orders imposing the initial penalty of Rs.31,500/-and also enhancement of the penalty of Rs.1,23,860/- shall stand quashed. There shall be no order as to the costs of the cause.



(Shailendra Pandey) (S.D. Anand)
Member (A) Member (J)

`SRD