Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6547
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member, Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member
N. Mani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 99 of 2017
For the applicant: Mr. C.A. Rao, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sahoo, Counsel
Disciplinary action for subletting government quarters invalid if initiated before allotment cancellation and opportunity to rebut allegations, violating natural justice and rules.
Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 9 - Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 - Rule 15-A - Disciplinary proceedings for alleged subletting of government accommodation - Surprise verification by committee found quarter under unauthorised occupation - Charge sheet issued without prior cancellation of allotment or opportunity to rebut allegations - Held, disciplinary proceedings can only be initiated after allotment cancelled following proof of subletting and opportunity of hearing to allottee as per principles of natural justice and departmental instructions - Enquiry behind back of allottee insufficient - Proceedings, punishment, appellate and revisional orders quashed. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 15)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Committee enquiry without notice to allottee cannot establish subletting - Competent authority must first cancel allotment after hearing allottee before initiating major penalty proceedings. (Paras 13, 14)
(C) Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of judicial review - Tribunal can interfere if initiation violates rules, instructions and natural justice, notwithstanding limitations on re-appreciating evidence. (Paras 7, 15)
Facts of the case:
Applicant, working as office superintendent, allotted railway quarter found during surprise verifications under unauthorised occupation by others. Committee report led to charge sheet under major penalty rules without prior allotment cancellation or hearing. Inquiry held, punishment of reduction in pay imposed, upheld in appeal and revision. Applicant challenged proceedings as without jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
Disciplinary proceedings initiated prematurely without establishing subletting through due process; violation of Rule 15-A, departmental circular and natural justice. All impugned orders set aside.
Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings for subletting valid without prior cancellation of quarter allotment after hearing allottee; compliance with natural justice and rules.
Ratio Decidendi: As per instructions, subletting charge established only after pool holder cancels allotment post opportunity to rebut; committee's backdoor enquiry inadequate - proceedings liable to be quashed for procedural illegality.
Result: Original Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging disciplinary punishment for quarter subletting. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's denial and procedural violations alleged. (Para 3 , 4 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. respondents defend enquiry and punishment validity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. subletting requires prior allotment cancellation notice. (Para 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. quashing proceedings for natural justice violation. (Para 12 , 15) |
ORDER
Pramod Kumar Das, (AM)
The instant Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 challenging the punishment Order of reduction of band pay by the Respondents seeking the following relief(s):-
“ Under aforesaid circumstance it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly admit the case call for the records and after hearing parties appropriate direction be given declaring that the initiation of proceeding vide Charge Sheet (Annexure-3), punishment order (Annexure-8) and appellate order confirming the punishment (Annexure-10) and Revisional Order dtd. 07.09.2017 of Chief Personnel Officer, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-A/12) are without jurisdiction, bad in law and the same may be quashed and /or any other direction as may be deem fit and proper be issued, for which applicant as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that The Applicant was allotted Qr. No.592/1-Type-II w.e.f. 23.12.2005. While the Applicant was working as Office Superintendent/Control Office under Sr. DOM(M), Waltair, surprise door to door joint verification by the nominated Committee was conducted on 27.06.2015, 29.06.2015 and 03.07.2015 at the Jail Area of Visakhapatnam and it was found that the allotted quarter of the Applicant was under unauthorised occupation by others i.e. (the quarter was subletted). Basing on such fact finding report of the Committee, the Senior Divisional Engineer (HQ) vide his letter dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure-A/1) recommended for taking action against the erring railway employees including the Applicant. Thereafter, vide letter dated 06.08.2015(Annexure-A/2) the Chairman Optg Sub-Qrs Committee Cum Asst. Optns Manager (G) E.Co.Rly/Wat instructed the Divl. Personal Officer, E.Co. Rly, Waltair as advised by ADRM/WAT, to cancel the allotment of Qrs., initiate eviction proceedings and recover the penal rent from the erring railway employees including the Applicant. Consequently, the Applicant was issued with major penalty Charge Sheet u/R 9 of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 vide Memorandum dated 21.08.2015 ( Annexure-A/3) by Sr. Divl. Optns. Manager, E.Co.Rly., Waltair (Respondent No.2/Disciplinary Authority) with a direction to submit the Written Statement of defence within 10 days of receipt of the same. The Applicant was duly served with article of charges, statement of imputations, list of documents and witness to be relied upon.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant in her explanation dated 26.08.2015 denied the allegation and on considering the same, the Respondent No.2 (Disciplinary Authority) vide order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure-A/4) in exercise of power under Rule-9(2) of the Rules appointed Sri D.P. Jena, AOM(G) as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the Applicant. The Inquiring Officer conducted the enquiry by affording due opportunity of hearing to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Sr. Divisional Optns. Manager (M) vide his letter dated 11.01.2016 (Annexure-A/6) issued notice enclosing the enquiry report asking the applicant to submit her reply/representation if any within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter. The Applicant submitted her detailed reply to the show cause dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure-A/7) stating that the Inquiry Officer did not consider the facts precipitated during course of enquiry but merely held that charges seems to have been proved, which clearly indicates that the Inquiry Officer, instead of basing his conclusion on material evidence and facts arrived at
