Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. BABU, JJ.
P. Premalatha W/o Muraleedharan Nair – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Rep. by the Secretary – Respondent
O.P. (CAT) No. 14 of 2021
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 and 227 – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 14 – Issuance of Exhibit – Prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as Call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P1 and quash the same and allow the O.Aon the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal. – Award costs of and incidental to this Original Petition (CAT). – Pass such other orders or directions as deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case – Prayers in Ext.P2 amended Original Application O.A. filed by the applicant in the O.A. are as Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A13, A15, A17 and A19 and quash the same. – Call for the records leading to the issue of A1 and declare that the proceedings therein stand abated as on 2.12.2017 in the light of sub-rule (24) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by A11 notification. – Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A22 and A23 and quash the same. – Direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in relation to A1 charge memo and direct further to grant all the consequential benefits emanating therefrom. – Award costs and incidental thereto – Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just and fit by this Tribunal
Finding of the court :
Court is not in a position to quash the proceedings at this stage. – However, after hearing both sides and after perusal of Annexure A1 memo of charges, it appears that there are three charges raised therein. – First charge and the second charge is that the petitioner has not credited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- each on two occasions, to a post office savings account. – Third charge is that the petitioner has not credited an amount of Rs.100/- which has sought to be remitted to such an account. – A reading of Annexure A1 memo of charges would also disclose that there are no serious allegations that the petitioner, the delinquent, has in any manner committed any fraud or misappropriation, etc. – It is really difficult for us to countenance the plea of the respondents that they could not finalise the disciplinary proceedings for such simple finalised proceedings though the allegation appears to be quite simple. – It is ordered that if the proceedings are not finalised within an outer time limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, then the entire proceedings in that regard will stand quashed on the expiry of the said four months time limit without any further orders from this Court. – Court hope and trust that the third respondent will consider the matter with all seriousness and may take a decision as to whether or not the matter should be proceeded or not any further or the matter should be dropped, taking into account the abovesaid aspects and also the fact that the petitioner had already retired from service on 28.2.2021. – Counsel for the petitioner will ensure that copies of this judgment are forwarded to official respondents 1 to 5 by speed post with acknowledgment due for necessary information. – Time limit of four months will be computed from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Consequently it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P1 final order rendered by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. will stand set aside –
Result : Original Petition Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:
(b) Award costs of and incidental to this Original Petition (CAT).
(c) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The prayers in Ext.P2 amended Original Application O.A. No. 466 of 2018 filed by the applicant in the O.A. are as follows:
(ii) Call for the records leading to the issue of A1 and declare that the proceedings therein stand abated as on 2.12.2017 in the light of sub-rule (24) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by A11 notification.
(iii) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A22 and A23 and quash the same.
(iv) Direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in relation to A1 charge memo and direct further to grant all the consequential benefits emanating therefrom.
(v) Award costs and incidental thereto.
(vi) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just and fit by this Tribunal.”
3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered impugned Ext.P1 final order dated 10.2.2021 in O.A. No. 466 of 2018, whereby it has been held that Annexure A11 amended notification dated 2.6.2017 introducing sub-rule (24) of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965], will not regulate the present disciplinary proceedings covered by Annexure A1 memo of charges dated 23.1.2013 inasmuch as Annexure A11 amended notification dated 2.6.2017 has only prospective effect from 2.6.2017, etc. and accordingly, the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A.
4. It is the abovesaid final order of the Tribunal rendered at Ext.P1 on 10.2.2021 in the above O.A. that is under challenge in the Original Petition.
5. In the instant case, the petitioner/applicant was serving as Postal Assistant of Aluva Postal Division. While so, she has been served with the impugned Annexure A1 memo of charges dated 23.1.2013 issued by R4 (The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aluva Postal Division, Aluva) raising three charges therein. Later, during the pendency of the abovesaid disciplinary proceedings, the Union Government, in exercise of the statutory rule making power, has promulgated Annexure A11 notification published in the Gazette of India dated 2.6.2017, whereby amendment has been made to Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, by incorporating sub-rule (24) thereto. The relevant portion of amended provision made out as per Annexure A11 dated 2.6.2017 is extracted below:
1. In Rule 14:
(i).............
(ii).............
(iii) After sub-rule (23), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:-
“(24) (a) The Inquiring Authority should conclude the inquiry and submit his report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of order of his appointment as Inquiring Authority.
(b) Where it is not possible to adhere to the time limit specified in clause (a), the Inquiring Authority may record the reasons and seek extension of time from the disciplinary authority in writing, who may allow an additional time not exceeding six months for completion of the Inquiry, at a time.
(c) The extension for a period not exceeding six months a time may be allowed for any good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority authorized by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf.”
6. Earlier, the petitioner had challenged initiation of the said disciplinary proceedings in terms of Annexure A1 memo of charges and had approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 28 of 2013
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
