Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J.
K.A. Jacob, S/o. Late K.J. Augustine – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WP(C) No. 21678 of 2021
Decided on : 22-09-2022
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14, 24 - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 - Rule 3 (1)(i) to (ii) - Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 - Section 3(a), 7(4), 34(2)(b) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Fraudulent Documents - Disciplinary Action - Petitioner claimed and obtained reimbursement of medical expenses by producing fraudulent documents - Disciplinary action was initiated against petitioner – Appointment of employees is covered by the Standing Instructions - Para 17.
Finding of the Court :
No valid ground is seen raised as regards challenge against appellate order (Ext.P24) and more importantly, appellate authority was not originally made a party to this writ petition - Hence, challenge against appellate order is also rejected - Petitioner has failed to prove allegation of bias, mala fides, and violation of principles of natural justice, and challenge on ground of lack of authority of third respondent being found unsustainable, Court find absolutely no valid ground to interfere with order of disciplinary authority, as confirmed by appellate authority - As far as proportionality of punishment is concerned, legal position is clear that scope for interference under Article 226 is very limited – On uncontroverted facts also, Court see no reason to interfere with penalty.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner joined as Junior Stenographer in the second respondent/Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) on 14.05.1986. He was promoted as Accountant/Account Assistant on 30.12.1997 and as Senior Accountant on 14.08.2009. On being promoted as Senior Accountant, the petitioner was posted at the head office of the second respondent. While working at the head office, the petitioner was placed under suspension and issued with Ext.P1 memorandum dated 26.05.2015, proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Along with the memorandum, the articles of charge, statement of imputations, list of witnesses and copies of documents were appended. The allegations, based on which disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner, are as under;
The petitioner claimed and obtained reimbursement of medical expenses by producing fraudulent documents. Thereby the petitioner caused loss to the MPEDA. Three medical bills dated 20.01.2015 supported by medical certificates issued by Dr.Maya were tampered, by entering the consultation fees which Dr.Maya never charged or received from him. The said bills were recommended for payment by the petitioner himself, in his capacity as Senior Accountant. Thereby, the competent authority was misled into believing that the bills were supported by valid medical certificates. By his action, the petitioner indulged in acts unbecoming of a Government servant and violated Rule 3 (1)(i) to (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.
2. The petitioner gave Ext.P2 reply to the charges which the third respondent/Chairman found not satisfactory. Hence, an Inquiry Officer was appointed as per Ext.P3 office order dated 24.07.2015. The inquiry proceedings commenced on 01.10.2015. That day itself the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application, requesting the Inquiry Officer to call for 14 additional documents. The Inquiry Officer decided to call for 8 additional documents and rejected the request for the other 6, finding those documents to be irrelevant for the inquiry. The details of additional documents were furnished under Ext.P5 communication dated 30.10.2015 and the reason for rejecting the other documents explained in Ext.P6 communication dated 09.11.2015. Being dissatisfied with the explanation, petitioner submitted Exts.P8 and P9 requests for making available the other 6 documents and to summon the additional witnesses. The request was rejected vide proceedings dated 10.12.2015, the date on which the examination of witnesses commenced. Although the petitioner and his Defence Assistant were present in the inquiry chamber, they did not cooperate with the inquiry and left the place when Dr.Maya entered the Chamber for the purpose of giving evidence. After completing the chief examination of Dr.Maya, the inquiry was posted to 12.12.2015. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made a written representation to the third respondent expressing lack of confidence in the Inquiry Officer and requesting to stop the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner also filed W.P.(C) No.38260 of 2015 challenging the proceedings. That writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.R2(c) judgment dated 17.12.2015. The challenge against the inquiry having failed, three more witnesses were examined on 21.12.2015. In spite of Dr.Maya being present for cross examination again, the petitioner refused to cross-examine that witness on the premise that it was impossible for his Defence Assistant to travel from Chennai to Cochin within the short span of time granted. Relenting to the petitioner's request, the cross examination of Dr.Maya was adjourned to 22.12.2015 and the Defence Assistant was asked to travel either by road or air, so as to be present for the proceedings. In spite of granting such opportunity, the petitioner and the Defence Assistant failed to appear for cross examining the witness. Consequently, the petitioner was set ex
Section 7(4), Authority is empowered to appoint officers and employees, for efficient performance of its functions.
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
It is a duty of Inquiry Officer to scan entire evidence in order to arrive at a finding after judging case of all the parties, adhering to the principles of natural justice, otherwise, inquiry is vit....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to rules of natural justice while allowing for reasonable discretion by authorities, particularly regarding witness testimony; dismissal upheld for proven misappr....
Disciplinary proceedings vitiate if an inquiry is conducted without serving proper notice to the delinquent, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses and failing to furnish a copy of the inquiry ....
The court affirmed that the burden of proving actual prejudice from non-supplied documents lies with the petitioner, and mere allegations of procedural irregularity do not invalidate disciplinary pro....
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
The court ruled that failure to follow prescribed disciplinary procedures invalidates termination, emphasizing the necessity of fair process in disciplinary actions.
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
