The principle of res judicata bars the applicant from challenging the penalty as the issues were previously adjudicated and decided on merit.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 - Disciplinary proceedings - The applicant challenged the penalty imposed for misconduct, including intimidation and falsification of records. The Tribunal dismissed the application, citing res judicata due to previous decisions on similar issues. (Paras 1, 10, 15)

(B) Res Judicata - The principle of res judicata applies as the applicant's previous appeals were decided on merit, and the current application raises the same issues. (Paras 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Senior Auditor, faced disciplinary action for misconduct involving intimidation and falsification of attendance records. Previous penalties were quashed by the Tribunal, but a fresh penalty was imposed, which the applicant contested.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the application hit by res judicata, as the applicant had previously litigated similar issues without success.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant could challenge the penalty based on favorable outcomes for co-accused in similar cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that the applicant's case was barred by res judicata, as the issues had been previously adjudicated and decided.

Result: Application dismissed.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):

The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a)(i) Quash and set aside the order passed by FADS vide dt. 01.03.2019 bearing No.77/DAD/(C)/2019 being in Revision Petition under Rule 29(IV) 1965 agaisnt penalty order dt. 02.05.2008 which is upheld along with Pt. 1100 No.75 dt. 01.04.2019 passed by Respondent No. in pursuance to CGDA order No.AN/XIII/13600(608)02/PC dt. 12.03.2019 with direction:-

(ii) To pass an order of the similar nature and effect as was passed by the Learned CGDA vide Bearing No.AN/XIII/1350-(640)/98/4 PS Mann/VoI-III dt. 22.8.2017 whereby common order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide dt. 14.5.2002 and the Appellate Authority (CGDA) vide dt. 27.1.2013 was dismissed and setting aside the penalty order imposed in common upon all the four commonly proceeded Cos by inclusion of the Applicant.

(b) Direction may also be issued to Grant all consequential benefits along and arrears accruing with 9% pendentlite and future interest; by directing fixing of Applicants Pension and Pensionary benefit as would be required in the similar manner as is released to Shri PS Mann based on Hon’ble High Court of JK Order which is up-held by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(c) Any other relief that this Hon’ble Tribunal may consider fit in the interest of justice may kindly be grant with awards of the cost of the instant OA.”

2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, while working as Senior Auditor, was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA)Rules, 1965 wherein he was charged with the following three Articles of Charge:-

“ARTICLE-I That the said S/Shri S.K. Sharma, AAO, A/C No.8285769, P.S. Mann, Sr. Adr A/C No.8323453, R.S. Sirohi, Sr. Adr A/C No.8298923 and S.K. Dhawan, Sr. Adr.A/C No.8301932 while functioning in the office of LAO (CVD) Delhi Cantt. entered the room of the then LAO viz. Shri Rambir Singh, Sr. Accounts Officer, on 08.10.98 at around 1315 Hrs with the intention of intimidating the LAO, who had some incriminating documentary evidence against them in his custody. On refusal by the LAO, who hand over the said documents they used vulgar and abusive language against the said officer. The said officer S/Sh. PS Mann and S/Sh. SK Dhawan, made a physical assault on the LAO. S/Sh. Dhawan held the officer captive and the said S/Sh. Mann hit the LAO on his head with a briefcase injuring him seriously, while S/Sh. SK Sharma, AAO and S/Sh. RS Sirohi, Sr. Adr., blocked the entry to LAO’s room preventing the other staff members from rescuing the officer. By committing such an ugly act, the said four officials committed gross misconduct and surpassed all the limits of decency thereby creating indiscipline, fear among the other members of staff and vitiating the working atmosphere in the office in furtherance of their personal self-interest.

Thus the said S/Shri SK Sharma, PS Mann, RS Sirhohi & SK Dhawan, have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant, thereby infringing sub rule (iii) of rule 3(1) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article of Charge-II That the said S/Shri S.K. Sharma, AAO, while serving in the aforesaid office marked CLs on a number of occasions, instead of ‘LA’ in red ink in the attendance register pertaining to the year 1998, in respect of S/Shri P.S. Mann, Sr. Adr., R.S. Sirhohi, Sr. Adr. & S.K. Dhawan, Sr. Adr., thus acting contrary to the procedure laid down in para 261 of OM Part-I. The said Shri S.K. Sharma, AAO showed that the said S/Shri PS Mann, Sr. ADR., RS Sirohi, Sr. Adr. & SK Dhawan, Sr. Adr., were on sanctioned ‘CL’ on the following dates, without their actually having been sanctioned any ‘CL’ and without any entry to that effect in ‘CL’ Register kept in the office for the purpose.

Name. Dates on which CLs were marked a)PS Mann, Sr. Adr 7.5.98, 11.5,98, 12.5,98 & 14.5.98 b) RS Sirohi, Sr. Adr. 15.1.98, 5.5.98, 8.6.98 & 9.6.98 c) SK Dha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1697

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr. R.N. Singh, J, Mr. B. Anand, AS K Dhawan – AppellantVersusM/o Defence – RespondentO.A./4384/2018

The principle of res judicata bars the applicant from challenging the penalty as the issues were previously adjudicated and decided on merit.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. R.N. Singh, J, Mr. B. Anand, A
S K Dhawan – Appellant
Versus
M/o Defence – Respondent
O.A./4384/2018