The initiation of revision proceedings under Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, occurs upon the issuance of a show cause notice within six months; moreover, dismissal is an appropriate penalty for the misappropriation of government funds as it destroys the essential employer-employee relationship of trust.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Challenging the Show Cause notice, dated 24.12.2013 as well as the order of removal from service dated 10.04.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.12.2015 rejecting his appeal, the applicant has filed OA for setting aside the said orders and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits and to pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows: The applicant was working as a Postal Assistant at Palayamkottai Head Office. While he was serving as Postmaster at Rajavilupuram Sub Office, a charge sheet dated 03.05.2009 was issued to him by the 4th respondent under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging certain irregularities. The applicant denied the charges, and consequently, a departmental enquiry was conducted. Based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the 4th respondent imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with effect from 01.07.2013, vide order dated 28.06.2013. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 24.12.2013, purportedly under Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, proposing revision of the penalty.

The applicant contends that this action was in violation of the said rule and that the 3rd respondent had already predetermined to remove him from service. It is further stated that the show cause notice was actually served on the applicant only on 30.12.2013, as evidenced by the date entered in ink, which indicates that the notice was prepared and served after the expiry of the statutory six-month period prescribed for review of the disciplinary authority’s order. Thereafter, without properly considering the applicant’s reply to the show cause notice, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 10.04.2014 removing the applicant from service. It is the applicant’s case that, as per settled law, mere initiation of revision proceedings by issuance of a show cause notice within six months from the date of the order of the subordinate authority does not amount to compliance with Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The rule requires that the final order in revision must be passed within the said six-month period. In the present case, the order dated 10.04.2014 was passed well beyond six months from 28.06.2013 (i.e., beyond 29.12.2013), and therefore, the 3rd respondent lacked jurisdiction to revise the earlier order. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the applicant submitted a revision petition dated 10.04.2014 to the 1st respondent. As no action was taken thereon, the applicant filed OA No1064 of 2014 before this Tribunal which disposed of the OA with a direction to the applicant to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the applicant filed an appeal on 16.10.2015 before the 2nd respondent, which came to be rejected by order dated 18.12.2015. The applicant also filed RA No. 2/2016 in OA No. 1064/2014, which was likewise dismissed. Hence, the present OA has been filed seeking appropriate relief.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that under Rule 29(1) (v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the 3rd respondent was required to complete the review and pass a final order within six months from the date of the order of the 4th respondent, i.e., 28.06.2013. Mere issuance of a show cause notice within the said period does not satisfy the requirement of the rule. Since the final order was passed only on 10.04.2014, beyond the prescribed period, the same is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.

4. It is further submitted that various Benches of this Tribunal have consistently held that initiation of revision proceedings by issuing a show cause notice within six months does not constitute valid compliance with Rule 29(