Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.Chandurkar, M.W.Chandwani, JJ.
Sharad Kumar Shyamlal Verma – Appellant
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal – Respondent
Writ Petition (WP) No. 1267/2013andwrit Petition (WP) No. 2423/2013 Writ Petition (WP) No. 1267/2013
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Disciplinary Authority - Central Civil Services - Rule 8, 9, 12, 22, 24 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The court held that the legal heirs of the deceased delinquent employee are entitled to prosecute the proceedings. The President of India is the disciplinary authority for group-A posts, and the right of appeal was not available to the delinquent employee. The court also found that the delinquent employee was given an opportunity to make his representation/submission against the disagreement note, and the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority was tentative and subject to final decision by the disciplinary authority after considering the submission of the delinquent employee. The court dismissed Writ Petition No. 1267/2013 and allowed Writ Petition No. 2423/2013, setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, which had modified the penalty and reduced the 10% cut in pension from ten years to five years.
Fact of the Case:
Sharad, a government servant, was charged with misconduct and faced a departmental inquiry. After the inquiry, a memorandum was sent to Sharad, asking him to submit his representation and submission on the inquiry report and disagreement note. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with a 10% cut in pension for ten years. Sharad filed a writ petition challenging the order of punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the legal heirs of the deceased delinquent employee are entitled to prosecute the proceedings. The President of India is the disciplinary authority for group-A posts, and the right of appeal was not available to the delinquent employee. The court also found that the delinquent employee was given an opportunity to make his representation/submission against the disagreement note, and the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority was tentative and subject to final decision by the disciplinary authority after considering the submission of the delinquent employee. The court dismissed Writ Petition No. 1267/2013 and allowed Writ Petition No. 2423/2013, setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, which had modified the penalty and reduced the 10% cut in pension from ten years to five years.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement of the legal heirs to prosecute the proceedings, the right of appeal for the delinquent employee, and the compliance with the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal heirs of the deceased delinquent employee are entitled to prosecute the proceedings. The President of India is the disciplinary authority for group-A posts, and the right of appeal was not available to the delinquent employee. The delinquent employee was given an opportunity to make his representation/submission against the disagreement note, and the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority was tentative and subject to final decision by the disciplinary authority after considering the submission of the delinquent employee.
Final Decision: Writ Petition No. 1267/2013 is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 2423/2013 is allowed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, which had modified the penalty and reduced the 10% cut in pension from ten years to five years is set aside.
JUDGMENT
M.W.CHANDWANI, J. - This common order and judgment will dispose of both writ petitions. Both petitions deal with the same order, one dtd. 20/11/2012, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the "CAT"), Nagpur in Original Application No. 2020/2007 (for short "O.A.").
2. Writ Petition No. 1267/2013 has been filed by Sharad Kumar S/o. Shyamlal Verma (for short the "Sharad") against Union of India and it's concerned officers of the Audit and Accounts Department (for short "the Department") and Union Public Service Commission. Whereas, the Union of India and officers of the Department (for short "Union of India and ors.") have filed Writ Petition No. 2423/2013 against the very same order.
3. Brief facts which gave rise to these counter writ petitions can be summarized as under:
4. Sharad was initially appointed as lower division clerk in the Department of Union of India. By passage of time, he was promoted to the post of accounts officer, senior accounts officer and then assistant chief accounts officer. In the year 2001, he was selected and sent on deputation as a deputy registrar (finance) in the Central University of Hyderabad. On 16/8/2004, by order and in the name of the President of India, the vigilance department served charge-sheet to Sharad for misconduct whereby the departmental inquiry has been initiated against Sharad on the following article of charges:
ARTICLE - I
That Shri S.K. Verma, while functioning as Sr. Accounts Officer (Admn) in the office of Director of Accounts (Postal) Nagpur during the period from 25/7/1995 to 9/3/2000 had notified four (4) vacancies of Group 'D' posts in the requisition sent to the Sub Regional Employment Exchange Nagpur-10 vide D.A.(P) Nagpur letter No. Admn-1/RP-35/II/2753 dtd. 2/9/1998, indicating requirement of following qualifications:
i) Essential - Middle School/standard pass
ii) Desirable - Training in Basic and Refresher course in Home Guards and Civil Defence.
After receipt of a list of 20 candidates from Sub Regional Employment Exchange Nagpur under letter No.358-20/574-10 dtd. 11/9/98, the said Shri S.K. Verma notified these 4 Group 'D' vacancies in the "Employment News Weekly - 24-30/10/1998". On receipt of applications from 4335 candidates, he got prepared/shortlisted a list of 215 selected candidates for interview from amongst the applications received in response to the local advertisement. While doing so, he ignored the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange and violated the provisions contained in the Directorate letter No.166-11/59-SPB-I dtd. 28/10/1970 (schedule for recruitment of orderlies, packers, peons in Circle and Administrative Offices) as also in the Directorate letter No. 166-12/59-SPB-I dtd. 26/7/66 (Sec. II Circles and Administrative Offices).
It is, therefore, alleged that by his aforesaid acts, the said Shri S.K. Verma failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duties and acted in a manner unbecoming of a govt. servant in contravention of Rule 3(1) (i), 3((1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE -II
That the said Shri S.K. Verma during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity recast the earlier notified 4 vacancies of Group 'D' posts to 16 vacancies with malafide intention. He proposed to call for 215 selected candidates for interview vide noting dtd. 12/2/99 on N/38 in file No. Admn.-I/RP-35/Vol.-II. He acted as one of the members of the Selection Board constituted for the purpose and interviewed candidates from the selected list on 15/2/99 to 17/2/99, 19/2/99 and 22/2/99. He along with other members of Selection Board made the selection of 16 candidates for recruitment to the Group 'D' posts vide proceedings dtd. 22/2/99 and appointed all these 16 selected candidates against Group 'D' posts during the month of March/April, 1999. However, the said Shri S.K. Verma, the then Sr. AO, purposefully and intentionally ignored the candidates from the list sponsored
AI
The legal heirs of a deceased delinquent employee are entitled to prosecute the proceedings, and the President of India is the disciplinary authority for group-A posts, with no right of appeal availa....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
A disciplinary authority must provide an opportunity for hearing when it disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings, and any punishment not prescribed by statutory rules is without jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, including giving the delinquent officer an opportunity t....
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority do not violate Article 311; the standard for punishment must align with proven misconduct.
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
The central legal principle established is that adherence to the principles of natural justice is essential in departmental proceedings, and failure to provide a fair hearing or necessary documentati....
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
