Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6886
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ACJ, HON’BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, J
V.Ramachandra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.020/0831/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B Gurudas
For the Respondents: Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG
Disciplinary authorities can impose penalties for negligence leading to financial loss, provided charges are specific, and procedural rules are followed, even if there is a delay in initiating proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Recovery of salary - Applicant challenged penalty of recovery of Rs.2,29,500/- imposed after a significant delay and without adequate inquiry - The Tribunal found that the applicant was responsible for procedural violations leading to fraud - The disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction, and the penalty was upheld as proportionate. (Paras 1, 7, 10, 15)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The applicant argued denial of opportunity to defend against vague charges - The Tribunal ruled that the charges were specific and the inquiry followed due process. (Paras 7, 10)
(C) Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - The applicant claimed the delay in issuing the charge sheet and conducting the inquiry invalidated the proceedings - The Tribunal found the explanations for delay adequate, not warranting interference. (Paras 11, 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed seeking relief against penalty. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. grounds of challenge against disciplinary actions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of the disciplinary proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal standards for reviewing disciplinary actions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final order dismissing the application. (Para 15) |
O R D E R
PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“…. to call for the records pertaining to
1. Memo No.F IV/2/2013-14/VR dated 8-.07-2016(Annexure-I)
2. Memo No.F IV/2/2013-14/VR dated 27-2-2018 (Annexure-IX)
3.Memo No. Inv/13-VRC/2018 dated 26/28-6-.2018(Annexure-XI)
and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside and quash the said illegal punishment of recovery of Rs. 2,29,500/- with consequential direction to refund the amount already recovered from the applicant and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
2. As prayed for by the Applicant, the Tribunal, vide its Interim Order, dt. 27.08.2018, issued direction as follows:
“3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, there shall be an interim direction of stay of recovery until further orders.”
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are summarized below:
i. The Applicant has challenged the penalty of irregular recovery of Rs.2,29,500/- from his pay and allowances @ Rs 10,000/- per month, commencing from the month of March, 2018, awarded by the 3rd Respondent, without establishing the charge, vide memo no.FIV/2/2013-14/VR, dated 27-2-2018, and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, vide Memo no. Inv/13-VRC/2018, dated 26/28.6.2018, mechanically, without going into the evidence and merits of the case. It is submitted that the 3rd Respondent issued a charge sheet, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, after 9 years, vide memo no. F.IV/2/2013-14/VR, dated 8.7.2016, containing only one false and fictitious allegation of contributory negligence. After completing the inquiry, in a biased manner, the Inquiry Officer (IO) held the charge as proved, vide his Report, dated 26.12.2017. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer without any evidence, and awarded the penalty of recovery of Rs.2,29,500/- from his pay and allowances @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, commencing from the month of March, 2018, without establishing the charge, vide memo no. FIV/2/2013-14/VR, dated 27.02.2018. Aggrieved with the unjust penalty of recovery of such a heavy amount, the applicant preferred an Appeal, dated 26.03.2018, to the Appellate Authority, who rejected the same, mechanically, without applying his mind, and without evaluating the evidence on record, vide memo no. Inv/13-VRC/2018, dated 26/28-6-2018.
4. The grounds raised by the Applicant, while seeking relief, are as follows:
i. The action of the 3rd Respondent, in initiating major penalty proceedings after a lapse of 6 (six) years, without any sort of enquiry during the preliminary investigation and awarding the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.2,29,500/- from the pay and allowances of the Applicant, without establishing the charge levelled against the applicant is illegal, arbitrary, against the rules and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles-14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii. The charge sheet was issued to the applicant in respect of the alleged incident that took place during the year 2010, after 6 years. No enquiry was made with him during the preliminary investigation. If he was responsible, in any way, in this case, minimum enquiries should
