Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
P. Balasubrahmanayam – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 3592-3593 of 2020
Decided On : 04-03-2021
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 14 – Punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect – All charges relating to bribery had been held in favour of respondent and those charges have been rejected – Only charges found proved are of procedural irregularities over which there are concurrent findings of relevant authorities based on certain admissions made by respondent himself – Proceedings have also got prolonged because at every stage respondent sought to challenge them in judicial forums, and that too not very successfully – Course adopted by Tribunal was appropriate course of action, i.e., procedural lapses having been found and bribery allegation having been rejected appropriate course would have been to examine only issue of disproportionality of punishment – Judicial forums do not sit as an appellate authority to substitute their mind with mind of disciplinary authority insofar as finding is concerned – However, disproportionality of punishment is a concept certainly not unknown to service jurisprudence and has received consideration of this Court – This is what Tribunal proposed to do – Punishment of compulsory retirement was completely disproportionate and harsh, keeping in mind finding arrived at by disciplinary authority – Nature of charges found against respondent can hardly be one to call for a major penalty, keeping in mind that there was no bribery charge – Anyone can make mistakes – Consequences of mistakes should not be unduly harsh – Direction of Tribunal is liable to be sustained – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that of Tribunal restored. (Paras 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Respondent joined the Department of Posts as Postal Assistant in year 1991 and earned his promotion from time to time to Assistant Superintendent of Posts in the year 2008, a Group-B Gazetted cadre post. A charge memo was issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority, Department of Posts under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Memo enumerated nine charges. Certain charges related to procedural lapses in discharge of duties while another set of charges dealt with alleged illegal gratification received by way of bribes. Accordingly, violation of duties under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 was alleged. Question is whether the Tribunal proceeded correctly in passing final direction to impose appropriate minor penalty. The Tribunal itself did not impose the punishment but left it to the authority concerned (for appropriate course of action). It was of the view that considering the findings of procedural lapses against the respondent, the appropriate punishment could only be a minor penalty and not a major penalty. With this again, we are in agreement with the course of action adopted.
Findings of Court:
Respondent also sought to contend that action of the appellants was retributive in character as he had earlier endeavoured to highlight the manipulations in the result of Postal Service Group-B cadre examinations and the legal proceedings that followed therefrom.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The respondent joined the Department of Posts as Postal Assistant in the year 1991 and earned his promotion from time to time to Assistant Superintendent of Posts in the year 2008, a Group-B Gazetted cadre post. A charge memo bearing No. Vig/105/10 dated 13.04.2010 (hereinafter referred as “the Memo”) was issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority, Department of Posts under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as “the 1965 Rules”). The Memo enumerated 9 charges. Suffice to say that certain charges related to procedural lapses in discharge of duties while another set of charges dealt with alleged illegal gratification received by way of bribes. Accordingly, violation of duties under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 was alleged.
2. The respondent contested the Memo at the threshold itself on the ground that the charges included allegations of bribery and thus had a vigilance angle. As such, it was averred that it could not have been issued without prior approval of the Central Vigilance Officer (hereinafter referred as “CVO”) as mandated by a circular dated 18.01.2005 of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and I.T. (hereinafter referred to as “the Circular”). The Circular advised that all cases of officers below the level of Group ‘A’ involving vigilance angle should be referred to the Directorate for consideration and advice by the CVO of the relevant department. Even for closing the cases after a preliminary enquiry report, the procedure was stated to be mandatory. The circular reads as under:
No. 7-4/CVC/2004-Vig
Government of India
Ministry of Communication and I.T.
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110001
Dated: 18.1.2005
To
All Principal Chief Postmaster General,
All Chief Postmaster General,
Director Postal Staff College India, Ghaziabad
Additional DG, Army Postal Service,
Chief Engineer (Civil), Headquarters
All Directors, Postal Training Centres
(By Name)
Subject: Jurisdiction of Central Vigilance Commission in retain (sic) to Officers of the level of Group ‘B’ Gazetted.
.........
1. I am directed to invite attention to this office Memo of even number dated 31st May 2004 on the subject captioned above vide which a copy of office Order No. 98/VGL/15 dated 16.04.2004 from Central Vigilance Commission was sent to you for information/necessary action as also for bringing the same to the notice of all concerned.
2. It may be recalled that as per the previous guidelines vigilance cases of the Gazetted Officers of the Central Government and its equivalent in other Government Organizations were to be referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for advice. However, vide their aforesaid Office Order dated 16.04.2004, the Commission have delegated their powers to the Central Government Ministries/Organisations with regard to vigilance cases of Gazetted Officers below Group ‘A’ of Central Government, viz. officers of the level of Group ‘B’ Gazetted.
3. While delegating their powers, the CVC felt that appropriate expertise is available to the CVO and expected that the CVO would exercise proper check and supervision over vigilance cases of officers of the level of Group ‘B’ Gazetted and would also ensure that the cases of these officers are disposed of expeditiously within the time frame stipulated by the Commission and further that the punishment awarded to these officers would commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct established on his part. The Commission is further noted that if they come across any matter, which in their opinion, is (sic) not been handled properly, it may recommended (sic) its review by the appropriate authority or may give such directions as it considers appropriate.
4. In view of the above delegations and expectations of the CVC, all the Heads of Circles and other concerned authorities are hereby advised that all cases of officers below the level of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
