Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. SASIDHARAN & M.V. MURALIDARAN, JJ.
D. Thamizhmani - Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No.13362 of 2014
Decided On : 13-04-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Singaravalen, Senior Counsel for Ms. M. Srividhya.
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Venkatesan.
The main legal point established is the requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to provide a reasoned and independent decision when imposing a penalty in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
PVC Pipes - Disciplinary Proceedings - CCS Conduct Rules 1964 - Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) - Rule 3(2)(ii) (iii) and (iv)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of BSNL, was alleged to have recommended procurement of PVC pipes in violation of instructions, leading to disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Disciplinary Authority failed to provide justifiable reasons for imposing the penalty and that the Central Administrative Tribunal did not adequately address the merits of the order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the imposition of penalty in disciplinary proceedings, the consideration of Enquiry Officer's report, and the advice of the UPSC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the Disciplinary Authority to provide a reasoned and independent decision when imposing a penalty, especially when differing from the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and remitted the matter for fresh consideration within three months.
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 25 July 2014 in O.A.No.1366 of 2011 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner challenging the order imposing punishment by the first respondent, notwithstanding the clean chit given by the Enquiry Officer.
Factual background:-
2. The petitioner is an employee of BSNL. The Disciplinary Authority issued a charge memo to the petitioner on 18 September 2007 alleging that he was instrumental in making recommendation for procurement of PVC pipes in huge quantities far beyond the actual requirement for the period 2000-2001 and thereafter, procured the pipes in total violation of the instructions given by the Chief General Manager.
3. The petitioner in his explanation denied the charge and submitted that he joined duty only on 3 July 2000 and the procurement was pursuant to the earlier order dated 4 January 1999. The explanation was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted a very detailed enquiry and submitted a report absolving the petitioner from the charges.
4. The Disciplinary Authority vide memorandum dated 28 October 2010, disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and decided to proceed further. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation as to why he should not be punished.
5. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the memorandum. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed the impugned order dated 28 September 2011 imposing the penalty of reduction of pay in the time scale for a period of two years. The order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal without addressing the issues raised by the petitioner, dismissed the original application primarily on the ground that before imposing the punishment, advice of the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the UPSC) was also taken. The order passed by the Tribunal is under challenge before this Court.
6. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.
DISCUSSION:-
7. The Disciplinary Authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on allegation that while functioning as Deputy General Manage (Planning), in the office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Kerala Circle Trivandrum, during the period from 3 July 2000 to 5 June 2001, the petitioner recommended for procurement of PVC pipes in huge quantities, far beyond the actual requirement for the period from 2000-2001 and procured the same in violation of the instructions issued by the Chief General Manager that preliminary estimates must be obtained and details furnished before placing the purchase orders and that the estimates have to be furnished before placement of advance purchase orders. The Disciplinary Authority alleged that the petitioner violated the departmental instructions regarding decentralized procurement, and thereby caused undue loss to the Department of Telecommunications and BSNL.
8. The petitioner in his detailed explanation, submitted that he was not responsible for the purchase of PVC pipes. According to the petitioner, he was neither the authority involved in the methodology adopted in Kerala Circle in the finalization of quantity of pipes to be tendered nor had any role in assessment of pipes to be procured. The petitioner contended that at the instance of the General manager, Development, who was involved in the entire process of procurement, he had put up the file. In short, the petitioner contended that he was not responsible for the purchase of PVC pipes in any manner.
9. The Enquiry Officer conducted a full fledged enquiry. While absolving the petitioner from the charges, the Enquiry Officer recorded thus:-
“It is seen that the Charged Officer, as per the discussions the GM (Dev) had with the SE Civil
