Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3209
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00805 and 00806/2016
Dated this the 27th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
P. Sumitha,
W/o R. Pushpanathaqn,
Upper Division Clerk,
O/o Commercial Tax Officer, I
Commercial Tax Department,
Union Territory of Puducherry. .. Applicant in OA 805/2016
R. Pushpanathan,
S/o Ranganathan,
Upper Division Clerk,
Registration Department,
Union Territory of Puducherry .. Applicant in OA No.806/2016
By Advocate M/s. M. Ravi
Vs
1. Union of India
Union Territory of Puducherry,
Rep by its Chief Secretary,
Chief Secretariat Buildings,
Puducherry.
2. The Special Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel &
Administrative Reform (Personnel Wing),
Chief Secretariat,
Union Territory of Puducherry.
2 OA No.310/805 & 806/2016
2. The Development Commissioner cum
Secretary (Finance)/Appellate/
Revision Authority,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
4. The Director of Accounts & treasuries,
Puducherry .. Respondents in both the OAs
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
M. Ravi; Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
Statutory authorities must exercise powers within a reasonable time, and penalties cannot be imposed without due process, especially when co-accused are exonerated.
Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 29 and Rule 31 - Appointment and disciplinary proceedings - Applicants challenged the penalty of 'Censure' and cancellation of their selection for Upper Division Clerk after 20 years, arguing lack of authority and due process - The court emphasized that service conditions cannot be altered without notice and a fair hearing (Paras 3, 12).
(B) Reasonable time for exercising powers - The court reiterated that even in the absence of a prescribed time limit, statutory authorities must act within a reasonable timeframe, ideally within five years (Paras 15, 16).
(C) Exoneration of co-accused - The court ruled that since the co-accused was exonerated, the charges against the applicants lacked basis, rendering the penalty imposed untenable (Paras 4, 12).
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to quash an order that imposed a penalty of 'Censure' and cancelled their selection for UDC after 20 years, without prior notice or opportunity to be heard.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside, and the applicants were directed to be appointed as UDC with retrospective effect from 11.03.1997, along with all consequential benefits.
Issues: The main issues included the authority's power to impose penalties after a significant delay and the validity of charges against the applicants in light of the exoneration of a co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the authority acted beyond its jurisdiction and failed to provide due process, emphasizing the need for timely action by statutory authorities.
Result: Original Applications allowed.
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member, Judicial Member)
Since the issues in these two applications are similar, and the applicants seek an identical relief based on comparable facts and circumstances, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.
2. The relief prayed for by the applicants is as follows:
“may be pleased to call for the records on the file of rd the 3 respondent in 2669/Secy/Fin/PA/15, dated 02.02.2016 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the applicant as Upper Division Clerk with retrospective effect from 11.03.19978 i.e., the date of such appointment of his/her immediate Junior in the select list and to grant him/her all consequential service and monetary benefits and to pass such further or other orders as deemed fit and thus render justice.”
3. The facts leading to the filing of these applications are as follows:
The Original Applications have been filed to challenge the validity of the penalty of 'Censure' and the cancellation of the applicants' selection for appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) after nearly 20 years from the date of selection. These actions were taken by the 3rd respondent without any power, authority, or jurisdiction, and without providing prior notice to the applicants. The impugned order, which overturned the decision exonerating the applicants from the charges and imposed a penalty of 'Censure', also resulted in the cancellation of their selection for the UDC position after a span of two decades, severely impacting their service conditions. It is well-established that an employee's service conditions cannot be altered without notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. However, in this case, the applicants were not afforded any opportunity to present their case before the impugned order was issued. The applicants have therefore sought consequential directions to appoint them to the post of UDC, effective from the date of appointment of their immediate junior in the merit list, along with all consequential benefits.
4. The primary argument presented by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the charges against them claim they conspired with one Mr. S. Narayan to secure promotion to the position of Upper Division Clerk. However, since Mr. S. Narayan was exonerated of the charge, the proceedings against the applicants should be deemed null and void, as the charges no longer have a valid basis. This position is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansingh's case , where the applicants should be entitled to the same treatment as Mr. S. Narayan.
5. The counsel further argued that the 3rd respondent failed to recognize that the core issue pertains to the applicants' selection by the Selection Committee. Given that the selection authority has been exonerated of the charges by the highest national authority, there is no justification for the 3rd respondent to impose any penalty on the applicants.
6. Additionally, the counsel pointed out that the respondents overlooked the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Punjab & Ors vs Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union (2007) 11 SCC 363 , which held that even when no limitation period is prescribed, it does not grant the authority to exercise power at any time. The Court emphasized that, in such cases, the statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable time.
7. He referenced the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Sengodan Vs. Govt of Tamil Nadu rep by Secretary toGovernmen and another ( (2009) 1 MLJ 1149 ), which held that a delay of 7 years in exercising suo-motu powers under a rule similar to Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules is improper. The 3rd respondent failed to consider the established legal position that authorities, even without a prescribed time limit, must exercise suo-motu powers within a reasonable time. In this case, the pow
