CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH O.A. No.310/00281 of 2021 DATED TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

P. Krishnan, 59 years.

Assistant Engineer (Civil)

Office of the Commander Works Engineer, Military Engineer Services Wellington Barracks, The Nilgiris, Tamilnadu 643 231.

..........Applicant (Advocate: M/s. V. Vijaya Shankar)

Vs.

1. The Union of India.

Rep by the Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. -11;

2. The Engineer in Chief's Branch Kashmir House, Integrated HQ of MOD (Army)

DHQ PO, New Delhi-11;

3. The Chief Engineer Southern Command, Pune-411001.

…...Respondents (Advocate: Mr. K. Rajendran, Sr. CGSC)

O R D E R (Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

In this case, the applicant is seeking quashing of the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 09.09.2019 imposing the penalty of Censure and for a direction to the respondents to grant promotions to the applicant on par with his colleagues and juniors with all attendant and consequential benefits.

2. From the facts on record, it is observed that the applicant was appointed in the Military Engineering Services in 1989 as Superintendent B/R Grade II [now Junior Engineer (Civil)] and was later promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in 2002 and was due for superannuation on 30/04/2021. This matter was admitted on 23/03/2021 and upon notice, respondents have appeared and filed their reply.

rd

3. The 3 respondent had issued a charge memo to the applicant vide Memo dated 21/10/2011 containing four articles of charges alleging disobedience of office orders, wilfully taking away classified files with malafide intent, etc. The applicant rd gave his reply dated 03/12/2011 raising objections that 3 respondent was not the nd competent authority as his Appointing Authority was Engineer-in-Chief (2 respondent). After holding inquiry, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 30.12.2013, imposed a penalty of "withholding three increments without cumulative effect" on the applicant.

4. The applicant filed appeal dated 24/02/2014 to the 1^st respondent and later filed OA No.497/2014 before this Tribunal, in which, vide order dated 09/04/2014, this Tribunal directed the 1^st respondent to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible. Subsequently, M.A. No. 77/2015 was filed seeking modification in the said direction and accordingly, vide order dated 03/02/2015, this Tribunal directed the applicant to submit his statutory appeal to the appropriate statutory authority. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his appeal to the 2^nd respondent stating that copy of the Inquiry Report was not provided to him and an ex parte enquiry was done without considering his request to engage legal practitioner as defence assistant and the 3^rd respondent is not the competent authority to conduct inquiry and to impose penalty against him.

5. Vide order dated 03/06/2015, the Appellate Authority set aside the penalty order dated 30/12/2013 and remitted the case back to Disciplinary Authority for re- conducting the inquiry from the stage of inquiry proceedings dated 06/12/2013. Pursuant thereto, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 14/08/2015 and applicant was summoned for enquiry proceedings on 20/11/2015. Applicant submitted representation dated 13/02/2016 before the 2^nd respondent. Meanwhile, Inquiry Officer submitted Inquiry Report dated 28/06/2016. Applicant submitted his reply on 15/09/2016. As no decision was taken even after lapse of two months, applicant filed O.A. No.11/2017 for a direction to the disciplinary authority to pass order on Inquiry Report within a time frame. This Tribunal, vide order dated

14/02/2017, disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents to pass order on rd Inquiry Report within three months. Pursuant thereto, the 3 respondent, vide order dated 11/12/2017, once again remitted the ma